UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT    LOS  ANGELES 


THE  GIFT  OF 

MAY  TREAT  MORRISON 

IN  MEMORY  OF 

ALEXANDER  F  MORRISON 


etc    c  c  «    t 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM 

IN    ITS 

LEGISLATIVE  ASPECTS 

BY 

FREDERIC   H.  WINES  AND  JOHN   KOREN 


AN    INVESTIGATION    MADE 
UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF 

CHARLES  W.  ELIOT,  SETH   LOW 
AND  JAMES    C.  CARTER 

SUB-COMMITTKB   OF   THE   COMMITTEE   OF   FIFTY   TO 

INVESTIGATE    THE    LIQUOR 

PROBLEM 


SECOND  EDITION 


m 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,   MIFFLIN   AND   COMPANY 

1898 


Copyright,  1897  and  1898, 
By  CHARLES  W.  ELIOT,  SETH  LOW,  AND  JAAIES  C.  CARTER. 

All  rights  reserved. 


t       •.       ,L      „ 


,       <^       «  I       I        C      •    /<      C  * 

,     «.'  <        r.  t     .'     t       ci 

•  •• 

.     .     <    '    '    '     '•'    '..*''  '      ••'     «.' 


The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 
Electrotyped  and  Printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  &  Co. 


t^Y 


NOTE   TO   SECOND   EDITION. 

When  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was  published,  the 
Raines  law  in  New  York  had  been  for  a  short  time  in 
operation,  but  amendments  were  pending.  Sufficient  time 
has  elapsed  since  the  revision  of  the  law  to  justify  a  full 
examination  of  its  working,  and  accordingly  a  new  chapter 
has  been  added  in  this  second  edition,  with  the  title,  "  The 
Operation  of  the  New  York  Liquor  Tax  Law."  The  op- 
portunity offered  by  a  reissue  has  been  taken  also  to  bring 
down  to  date  the  observations  on  the  South  Carolina  Dis- 
pensary System,  Massachusetts  Liquor  Legislation,  and 
Pennsylvania  Liquor  Legislation.  Brief  additions  there- 
fore will  be  found  on  pp.  180a,  180^*,  230,  and  291. 

Boston,  August  2,  1898. 


PREFACE. 

For  several  years  beginning  in  1889,  a  group  of  fifteen 
gentlemen,  who  came  to  be  known  as  the  Sociological 
Group,  prepared  papers  on  subjects  in  sociology,  which  were 
published  in  "The  Century  Magazine  "  and  "  The  Forum." 
These  articles  were  written  by  single  members  of  the  group, 
but  were  criticised  before  their  publication  by  other  mem- 
bers. Among  the  subjects  dealt  with  were  :  A  Programme 
for  Labor  Keform,  by  Professor  Richard  T.  Ely  ;  The 
Social  Problem  of  Church  Unity,  by  the  Eev.  Dr.  Charles 
W.  Shields  ;  Pensions  and  Socialism,  by  Professor  William 
M.  Sloane  ;  Government  of  Cities  in  the  United  States, 
by  President  Seth  Low. 

Meetings  of  the  group  were  held  from  time  to  time  in 
New  York  city,  at  which  there  was  a  useful  interchange  of 
opinion  on  various  social  topics.  In  1893  these  gentlemen 
decided  to  enlarge  the  number  of  the  group  to  fifty,  and  to 
concentrate  their  attention  on  the  liquor  problem  in  the 
United  States.  The  selection  of  the  new  members  was 
made  chiefly  from  Eastern  cities,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
possible  to  procure  large  meetings  of  the  committee  in  New 
York  city  twice  a  year ;  but  there  were,  nevertheless,  a  few 
members  from  distant  places,  like  Milwaukee  and  St.  Louis. 
The  members  of  the  committee  bore  their  own  traveling  ex- 
penses ;  but  a  few  thousand  dollars  were  raised  by  private 
subscription,  mostly  in  New  York  and  Boston,  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  their  investigations. 

The  present  members  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty  are 
Dr.  Felix  Adler,  Bishop  E.  G.  Andrews,  Dr.  J.  S.  Billings, 
Professor  C.  A.  Briggs,  Dr.  G.  Alder  Blumer,  Z.  R. 
Brockway,  Esq.,   James  C.   Carter,  Esq.,  William  Bayard 


VI  PEEFACE. 

Cutting,  Esq.,  William  E.  Dodge,  Esq.,  Eev.  Father  A.  P. 
Doyle,  Rev.  Father  Walter  Elliot,  Dr.  E.  K  L.  Gould,  Eev. 
Dr.  W.  E.  Huntington,  President  Seth  Low,  Et.  Eev.  H.  C. 
Potter,  Eev.  Dr.  W.  I.  Eainsford,  Jacob  H.  Schiflf,  Esq.,  of 
New  York  ;  Professor  H.  P.  Bowditch,  J.  G.  Brooks,  Esq., 
Eev.  Dr.  Thomas  Conaty,  Eev.  Dr.  S.  W.  Dike,  President 
Charles  W.  Eliot,  Dr.  Edward  M.  Hartwell,  Professor  F. 
G.  Peabody,  Gen.  Francis  A.  Walker,^  of  Massachusetts; 
Professor  W.  0.  Atwater,  Professor  E.  H.  Chittenden,  Pro- 
fessor Henry  W.  Farnam,  Jacob  L.  Greene,  Esq.,  Professor 
J.  J.  McCook,  Eev.  Dr.  T.  T.  Hunger,  Charles  Dudley 
Warner,  Esq.,  Hon.  David  A.  Wells,  of  Connecticut ;  Pro- 
fessor C.  W.  Shields,  Professor  W.  M.  Sloane,  of  New 
Jersey ;  President  James  MacAlister,  Eobert  C.  Ogden, 
Esq.,  of  Pennsylvania ;  C.  J.  Bonaparte,  Esq.,  President 
D.  C.  Gilman,  Dr.  William  H.  Welch,  of  Maryland ;  Eev. 
Dr.  Alexander  Mackay-Smith,  Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  of 
Washington,  D.  C. ;  Eev.  Dr.  Washington  Gladden,  Pro- 
fessor J,  F.  Jones,  of  Ohio;  Frederic  H.  Wines,  Esq.,  of 
Illinois  ;  Professor  E.  T.  Ely,  of  Wisconsin  ;  Hon.  Henry 
Hitchcock,  of  Missouri ;  Et.  Eev.  T.  F.  Gailor,  of  Tennes- 
see ;  President  William  Preston  Johnston,  of  Louisiana, 

This  committee,  meeting  in  New  York  city  on  October  20, 
1893,  appointed  four  sub-committees  on  different  aspects  of 
the  drink  problem :  one  on  the  physiological  aspects,  one 
on  the  legislative  aspects,  one  on  the  economic  aspects,  and 
one  on  the  ethical  aspects.  The  sub-committee  on  the 
physiological  aspects  of  the  problem  began  work  almost  at 
once  by  setting  on  foot  several  series  of  investigations  con- 
cerning the  effects  of  alcohol  on  the  animal  economy.  The 
sub-committee  on  the  ethical  aspects  of  the  problem  thought 
it  expedient  to  delay  their  work  till  the  other  sub-committees 
had  made  some  progress  in  their  respective  fields.  The 
sub-committee  on  the  economic  aspects  waited  until  it  should 
1  Died  Januarj'  5,  1897. 


PREFACE.  VU 

be  determined  what  parts  of  numerous  desirable  investiga- 
tions should  be  undertaken  by  the  National  Bureau  of 
Labor  at  Washington.  The  fields  to  be  occupied  by  the 
National  Bureau  having  been  determined  toward  the  close 
of  the  year  1895,  the  sub-committee  on  the  economic  aspects 
of  the  drink  problem  then  began  the  prosecution  of  several 
inquiries. 

The  first  Eeport  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem  is  presented  in  this  volume ; 
and  it  is  published  under  the  authority  of  the  whole  Com- 
mittee of  Fifty,  as  explained  in  the  following  prefatory  note 
by  the  Secretary,  Dr.  Francis  G.  Peabody :  — 

"  This  Committee,  made  up  of  persons  representing  dif- 
ferent communities,  occupations,  and  opinions,  is  engaged 
in  the  study  of  the  Liquor  Problem  in  the  hope  of  secur- 
ing a  body  of  facts  which  may  serve  as  a  basis  for  intel- 
ligent public  and  private  action.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the 
Committee  to  collect  and  collate  impartially  all  accessible 
facts  which  bear  upon  the  problem,  and  it  is  their  hope  to 
secure  for  the  evidence  thus  accumulated  a  measure  of  con- 
fidence on  the  part  of  the  community  which  is  not  accorded 
to  partisan  statements. 

"  The  investigations  of  the  Committee  are  carried  on 
under  the  direction  of  four  Sub-Committees,  which  deal 
respectively  with  the  Physiological,  Legislative,  Ethical, 
and  Economical  aspects  of  the  question. 

"  By  vote  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  January  10,  1896, 
reports  made  by  its  Sub-Committees  to  the  whole  body  may 
be  published,  by  authority  of  the  Executive  Committee,  as 
contributions  to  the  general  inquiry ;  but  to  all  such  pub- 
lications is  to  be  prefixed  a  statement  that  reports  of  Sub- 
Committees  are  to  be  regarded  as  preliminary  in  their 
nature,  and  only  contributory  of  facts  upon  which  the 
general  discussion  may  in  the  future  be  undertaken  by  the 
Committee  as  a  whole." 


viii  PREFACE. 

In  order  to  bring  the  present  volume  within  a  suitable 
compass  it  has  been  necessary  to  condense  somewhat  the 
reports  of  Messrs.  Wines  and  Koren.  This  condensation 
has  caused  the  omission  in  some  instances  of  the  detailed 
evidence  on  which  general  statements  are  based ;  but  no- 
thing has  been  added  to  their  reports,  and  no  expression  of 
their  opinions  has  been  even  in  the  slightest  degree  modified. 
This  inevitable  reduction,  however,  diminishes  in  some  in- 
stances their  responsibility  for  the  form  in  which  the  facts 
are  presented. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Introduction 1 

Prohibition  in  Maine  and  its  Results    ...  22 

The  History  of  Prohibition  in  Iowa          ...  96 

The  South  Carolina  Dispensary  System         .        .  141 

The  Restrictive  System  in  Massachusetts,  1875-1894  181 

The  Liquor  Laws  of  Pennsylvania         .        .        .  231 

The  Ohio  Liquor  Tax 292 

Liquor  Laws  in  Indiana,  since  1851        .        .        .  306 

The  Missouri  Local  Option  Law          ....  319 

The  Operation  of  the  New  York  Liquor  Tax  Law  338 

Index 421 


*      ■>       1   >  . 


THE  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Sub-committee  on  the  Legislative  Aspects  of  the 
Drink  Problem  received  from  the  Committee  of  Fifty 
appropriations  of  sixty-five  hundred  dollars.  In  April, 
1894,  the  sub-committee  engaged  Dr.  Frederic  H.  Wines, 
of  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  Mr.  John  Koren,  of  Boston, 
Massachusetts,  to  investigate  the  Avorking  of  the  liquor 
legislation  in  several  States  of  the  Union  in  which  that 
legislation,  or  its  history,  has  been  characteristic  or  espe- 
cially instructive. 

Mr.  Koren  began  work  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1894,  in 
the  State  of  Maine,  where  prohibitory  legislation  has  existed 
since  1851.  He  spent  three  months  in  Maine,  and  then 
studied  for  three  months  the  working  of  the  local-option 
law  in  Massachusetts,  —  chiefly  in  Boston  and  North 
Adams,  the  latter  place  being  a  large  town  with  a  con- 
siderable proportion  of  operatives  in  its  population.  From 
Massachusetts  he  proceeded  to  Pennsylvania,  and  gave 
three  months  to  a  study  of  the  working  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania License  Law,  —  chiefly  in  Philadelphia.  Next,  he 
studied  the  working  of  the  Dispensary  Law  in  South  Caro- 
lina during  February,  March,  and  April,  1895.  He  then 
gave  three  months  to  a  careful  revision  of  his  four  reports. 
Mr.  Koren,  therefore,  worked  continuously  for  the  sub- 
committee from  IVIay  1,  1894,  to  August  1,  1895.  Lastly, 
he  devoted  six  weeks  in  September  and  October,  1895,  to 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

an  extension  of  his  field  work  in  Pennsylvania,  particularly 
in  Pittsbuigh,  Wilke.s  BjTi'e,  and  Reading. 

Dr.  "\\'ines  began  his  studies  for  the  sub-committee  about 
the  fir&t  of  August,  1894:  and: his  first  work  was  an  elab- 
orate investigation  of  the  working  of  the  Missouri  law  in 
the  city  of  St.  Louis.  He  then  studied  the  history  and 
operation  of  the  Iowa  legislation,  and  in  April,  1895,  pre- 
sented to  the  sub-committee  a  careful  report  on  that 
remarkable  legislation.  He  next  went  to  Ohio,  and  inves- 
tigated the  Avorking  of  the  so-called  Mulct  Law,  under 
which  no  licenses  are  issued,  but  a  tax  is  levied  on  every 
liquor-seller.  Finally,  in  the  summer  of  1895,  he  pre- 
pared a  report  on  the  working  of  the  liquor  legislation  in 
Indiana.  He  gave  to  these  investigations  nine  months  of 
his  time  between  August  1,  1894,  and  September  1,  1895. 

These  investigations  cover  eight  different  kinds  of  liquor 
legislation.  They  are  not  complete  statistical  inquiries,  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  impossible,  with  any  resources  at  the 
command  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  to  obtain  satisfactory 
statistics  on  this  subject  for  any  State  of  the  Union.  It 
would  require  the  authority  of  the  general  government  and 
an  immense  expenditure  to  make  an  exhaustive  statistical 
inquiry  on  the  subject  of  the  consumption  of  alcoholic 
drinks  ;  and  it  is  very  doubtful  if  even  the  national  govern- 
ment could  obtain  all  the  important  facts  on  this  most  dif- 
ficult topic.  The  considerable  consumption  of  alcohol  for 
medicinal  and  industrial  purposes  masks  the  consumption 
for  drinking  purposes.  The  amount  of  alcohol  produced  in 
the  country  gives,  of  course,  no  clew  to  the  amount  con- 
sumed as  drink  in  any  single  State.  The  internal  revenue 
laws  of  the  United  States  and  the  freedom  of  interstate 
commerce  complicate  the  Avhole  situation.  Neither  have 
the  researches  of  Dr.  Wines  and  ]\Ir.  Koren  resulted  in 
complete  statistical  statements  of  the  number  of  arrests  for 
drunkenness,  or  for  drunkenness  and  disorderly  conduct,  or 


SCOPE    OF   THE   INVESTIGATION.  3 

of  the  number  of  crimes  attributable  to  alcohol.  Indeed, 
one  of  the  results  of  their  investigations  is  that  no  secure 
conclusions  can  be  based  on  any  such  statistics  now  in  exist- 
ence, so  much  are  the  accessible  statistics  affected  by  tem- 
porary, local,  and  shifting  conditions.  Nevertheless,  these 
reports  give  a  trustvvortliy  account  of  the  legislation  in  each 
State  dealt  with,  and  of  the  efforts  made  in  the  several 
States  to  enforce  the  laws  enacted ;  and  they  give  some 
indications  of  the  success  or  non-success  in  promoting  tem- 
perance of  the  various  kinds  of  legislation  described.  They 
inevitably  deal,  also,  with  the  social  and  political  effects  of 
the  various  sorts  of  liquor  legislation.  Within  these  limits, 
they  are  believed  by  the  sub-committee  to  be  accurate  and 
impartial. 

The  reports  relate  to  communities  which  differ  widely  in 
character.  Some  relate  to  compact  and  some  to  scattered 
populations ;  some  to  people  most  of  whom  are  native-born, 
and  some  to  communities  in  which  there  is  a  large  admix- 
ture of  foreign-born  persons.  The  principal  occupations  in 
the  States  examined  differ  widely.  Boston,  Philadelphia, 
and  St.  Louis  contain  chiefly  a  manufacturing  and  trading 
population,  while  the  population  of  South  Carolina  and 
Iowa  is  in  the  main  agricultural. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  researches  of  this  kind  are 
enormous.  In  matters  which  affect  private  character,  truth- 
ful reports  are  proverbially  hard  to  obtain.  The  accessible 
statistics  are  incomplete  or  inaccurate,  or  both.  The  effects 
of  intemperance  in  promoting  vice  and  crime  are  often 
mixed  with  the  effects  of  many  other  causes,  such  as 
unhealthy  occupations,  bad  lodgings,  poor  food,  and  inher- 
ited disabilities ;  and  it  is  very  difficult  to  disentangle 
intemperance  as  a  cause  from  other  causes  of  vice,  crime, 
and  pauperism.  At  every  point  connected  with  these  in- 
Testigations    the   studious   observer  encounters   an  intense 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

partisansliip;  which  blinds  the  eyes  of  witnesses,  and  ob- 
scures the  judgment  of  writers  and  speakers  on  the  subject. 
The  reports  deal  with  some  communities  in  which  the 
local  sentiment  has  been  in  favor  of  the  enforcement  of 
restrictive  laws,  and  Avith  others  in  which  the  sentiment  has 
been  adverse  to  such  enforcement.  On  the  whole,  they 
embrace  a  sufficient  variety  of  legislative  enactments,  and  a 
sufficient  variety  of  experience  with  these  enactments,  in 
communities  of  various  quality,  to  make  the  conclusions  to 
be  drawn  from  them  widely  interesting  and  instructive. 
Taken  together,  they  certainly  present  a  vivid  picture  of 
the  difficulties  of  such  inquiries,  and  give  effective  warning 
against  the  easy  acceptance  of  partial  or  partisan  statements 
on  the  subject. 

From  the  eight  reports  thus  obtained,  the  sub-committee 
derive  the  following  statement  of  results  and  inferences, 
which  omit  all  reference  to  similar  legislation  and  experi- 
ence in  other  States,  and  make  no  pretension  to  any  ex- 
haustive or  universal  character.  It  is  evident  that  methods 
which  succeed  in  one  place  do  not  necessarily  succeed  in 
another.  Moreover,  none  of  the  eight  reports  deals  with 
the  question  under  European  or  cosmopolitan  conditions. 

The  results  of  the  investigation  and  the  inferences  from 
it  which  the  sub-committee  laid  before  the  Committee  of 
Fifty  include  a  consideration  of  prohibition,  its  successes,  its 
failures,  its  concomitant  evils,  and  its  disputed  effects ;  local 
option  ;  the  systems  of  licenses  ;  licensing  authorities  ;  re- 
strictions on  the  sale  of  liquors  ;  druggists'  licenses  ;  and 
the  effect  of  liquor  legislation  on  politics. 

PROHIBITION. 

Prohibitory  legislation  has  succeeded  in  abolishing  and 
preventing  the  manufacture  on  a  large  scale  of  distilled  and 
malt  liquors  within  the  areas  covered  by  it.      In  districts 


PROHIBITION.  5 

where  public  sentiment  has  been  strongly  in  its  favor  it  has 
made  it  hard  to  obtain  intoxicants,  thereby  removing  temp- 
tation from  the  young  and  from  persons  disposed  to  alco- 
holic excesses.  In  pursuing  its  main  object,  —  which  is  to 
make  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicants,  first,  im- 
possible, or,  secondly,  disreputable  if  possible,  —  it  has 
incidentally  promoted  the  invention  and  adoption  of  many 
useful  restrictions  on  the  liquor  traffic. 

But  prohibitory  legislation  has  failed  to  exclude  intoxi- 
cants completely  even  from  districts  where  public  sentiment 
has  been  favorable.  In  districts  where  public  sentiment 
has  been  adverse  or  strongly  divided,  the  traffic  in  alcoholic 
beverages  has  been  sometimes  repressed  or  harassed,  but 
never  exterminated  or  rendered  unprofitable.  In  Maine 
and  Iowa  there  have  always  been  counties  and  munici- 
palities in  complete  and  successful  rebellion  against  the 
law.  The  incidental  difficulties  created  by  the  United 
States  revenue  laws,  the  industrial  and  medicinal  demand 
for  alcohol,  and  the  freedom  of  interstate  commerce  have 
never  been  overcome.  Prohibition  has,  of  course,  failed  to 
subdue  the  drinking  passion,  which  will  forever  prompt 
resistance  to  all  restrictive  legislation. 

There  have  been  concomitant  evils  of  prohibitory  legis- 
lation. The  efforts  to  enforce  it  during  forty  years  past 
have  had  some  unlooked-for  effects  on  public  respect  for 
courts,  judicial  procedure,  oaths,  and  law  in  general,  and 
for  officers  of  the  law,  legislators,  and  public  servants.  The 
public  have  seen  law  defied,  a  whole  generation  of  habitual 
law-breakers  schooled  in  evasion  and  shamelessness,  courts 
ineffective  through  fluctuations  of  policy,  delays,  perjuries, 
negligences,  and  other  miscarriages  of  justice,  officers  of  the 
law  double-faced  and  mercenary,  legislators  timid  and  insin- 
cere, candidates  for  office  hypocritical  and  truckling,  and 
office-holders  unfaithful  to  pledges  and  to  reasonable  pub- 
lic expectation.      Through  an  agitation  which  has  always 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

had  a  moral  end,  these  immoralities  have  been  developed 
and  made  conspicuous.  The  liquor  traffic,  being  very  profit- 
able, has  been  able,  when  attacked  by  prohibitory  legisla- 
tion, to  pay  fines,  bribes,  hush-money,  and  assessments  for 
political  purposes  to  large  amounts.  This  money  has  tended 
to  corrupt  the  lower  courts,  the  police  administration,  politi- 
cal organizations,  and  even  the  electorate  itself.  Wherever 
the  voting  force  of  the  liquor  traffic  and  its  allies  is  consid- 
erable, candidates  for  office  and  office-holders  are  tempted  to 
serve  a  dangerous  trade  interest,  which  is  often  in  antagonism 
to  the  public  interest.  Frequent  yielding  to  this  temptation 
causes  general  degeneration  in  public  life,  breeds  contempt 
for  the  public  service,  and  of  course  makes  the  service  less 
desirable  for  upright  men.  Again,  the  sight  of  justices, 
constables,  and  informers  enforcing  a  prohibitory  law  far 
enough  to  get  from  it  the  fines  and  fees  which  profit  them, 
but  not  far  enough  to  extinguish  the  traffic  and  so  cut  off  the 
source  of  their  profits,  is  demoralizing  to  society  at  large. 
All  legislation  intended  to  put  restrictions  on  the  liquor  traf- 
fic, except  perhaps  the  simple  tax,  is  more  or  less  liable  to 
these  objections ;  but  the  prohibitory  legislation  is  the  worst 
of  all  in  these  respects,  because  it  stimxalates  to  the  utmost 
the  resistance  of  the  liquor-dealers  and  their  supporters. 

Of  course  there  are  disputed  effects  of  efforts  at  prohibi- 
tion. Whether  it  has  or  has  not  reduced  the  consumption 
of  intoxicants  and  diminished  drunkenness  is  a  matter  of 
opinion,  and  opinions  differ  widely.  No  demonstration  on 
either  of  these  points  has  been  reached,  or  is  now  attainable, 
after  more  than  forty  years  of  observation  and  experience. 

LOCAL    OPTION. 

Experience  with  prohibitory  legislation  has  brought  into 
clear  relief  the  fact  that  sumptuary  legislation  which  is  not 
supported  by  local  public  sentiment  is  apt  to  prove  locally 
impotent,  or  worse.      On  this  fact  are  based  the  numerous 


LOCAL   OPTION.  7 

kinds  of  liquor  legislation  which  may  b€s  grouped  under  the 
name  of  local  option. 

In  the  legislation  of  the  eight  States  studied,  five  forms 
of  local  option  occur  :  In  Massachusetts,  a  vote  is  taken 
every  year  at  the  regular  election  in  every  city  and  town  on 
the  question,  Shall  licenses  be  granted  ?  and  the  determi- 
nation by  the  majority  of  voters  lasts  one  year.  In  Mis- 
souri, a  vote  may  be  taken  at  any  time  (but  not  within 
six^  days  of  any  state  or  municipal  election)  on  demand  of 
one  tenth  of  the  qualified  electors,  town  or  city  voters  hav- 
ing no  county  vote  and  vice  versa,  and  the  vote  being 
taken  not  of tener  than  once  in  four  years ;  but  in  counties 
or  municipalities  which  have  voted  for  license,  no  saloon 
can  be  licensed  unless  the  majority  of  the  property-holders 
in  the  block  or  square  in  which  the  saloon  is  to  be  situated 
sign  a  petition  that  the  license  be  issued.  In  South  Caro- 
lina, every  application  for  the  position  of  county  dispenser 
must  be  accompanied  by  a  petition  in  favor  of  the  applicant 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders  of  the  incorporated 
place  in  which  the  dispensary  is  to  be  situated ;  and  more 
than  one  dispensary  may  be  established  for  each  county, 
but  not  against  a  majority  vote  (operative  for  two  years)  in 
the  township  in  which  the  dispensary  is  to  be  placed.  In 
Ohio,  local  prohibition  is  permitted,  the  vote  being  taken 
at  a  special  election  on  the  demand  of  one  fourth  of  the 
qualified  electors  in  any  township.  In  Indiana  (law  of 
1895),  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  in  any  township  or 
ward  of  a  city  may  remonstrate  against  licensing  a  specified 
applicant,  and  the  remonstrance  voids  any  license  which 
may  be  issued  to  him  within  ten  years. 

The  main  advantage  of  local  option  is  that  the  same  pub- 
lic opinion  Avhich  determines  the  question  of  license  or  no- 
license  is  at  the  back  of  all  the  local  officials  who  administer 
the  system  decided  on.  The  Missouri  provisions  seem  to 
be  the  completest  and  jnstest  of  all.     One  year  being  too 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

short  a  period  for  a  fair  trial  of  either  license  or  no-license, 
Massachusetts  towns  and  cities  have  to  guard  themselves 
against  a  fickleness  from  which  the  law  might  protect  them. 
Under  local  option,  many  persons  who  are  not  prohihition- 
ists  habitually  vote  for  no-license  in  the  place  where  they 
live,  or  where  their  business  is  carried  on.  Persons  who 
object  to  public  bars,  although  they  use  alcoholic  drinks 
themselves,  may  also  support  a  local  no-license  system.  By 
forethought,  such  persons  can  get  their  own  supplies  from 
neighboring  places  where  license  prevails.  If  their  supplies 
should  be  cut  off,  they  might  vote  differently.  There  has 
been  no  spread  of  the  no-license  policy  in  Massachusetts 
cities  and  towns  since  1881,  except  by  the  votes  of  towns 
and  cities  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  license  towns  and 
cities. 

LICENSES. 

The  facts  about  licenses  and  the  methods  of  granting  them 
are  among  the  most  important  parts  of  the  results  of  this 
study.  There  is  general  agreement  that  licenses  should  not 
be  granted  for  more  than  one  year.  The  Massachusetts 
limitation  of  the  number  of  licenses  by  the  population  (1 
license  to  1,000  inhabitants,  except  in  Boston  1  to  500)  has 
worked  well,  by  reducing  the  number  of  saloons,  and  mak- 
ing the  keepers  more  law-abiding ;  but  the  evidence  does 
not  justify  the  statement  that  it  would  work  well  every- 
where. The  Missouri  restriction  —  no  license  within  500 
feet  of  a  public  park  —  and  the  Massachusetts  restriction  — 
no  license  within  400  feet  of  a  schoolhouse  —  are  both  com- 
mendable. Another  Massachusetts  provision,  to  the  effect 
that  the  holder  of  a  license  to  sell  liquors  to  be  drunk  on 
the  premises  must  also  hold  a  license  as  an  innholder  or 
victualer,  is  well  conceived ;  but  the  means  of  executing  it 
have  not  been  thoroughly  worked  out.  Pennsylvania,  out- 
side of  Philadelphia,  licenses  only  taverns  and  restaurants 
to  sell  intoxicants  for  consumption  on  the  premises. 


LICENSES.  y 

County  courts  have  been,  and  still  are,  common  licensing 
authorities  in  the  States  reported  on.  Officials  elected  for 
short  terms,  like  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  cities,  make 
bad  licensing  authorities ;  for  the  reason  that  the  liquor 
question  thereby  becomes  a  frequently  recurring  issue  in 
municipal  politics.  A  Massachusetts  law  of  recent  date 
provides  for  the  appointment  by  the  mayor  of  any  city  of 
three  license  commissioners,  each  to  serve  six  years,  one 
commissioner  retiring  every  second  year.  This  arrange- 
ment provides  a  tolerably  stable  and  independent  board, 
without  violating  the  principle  of  local  self-government. 

Every  licensing  authority  should  have  power  to  revoke  a 
license  promptly,  and  should  always  have  discretion  to  with- 
hold a  license,  no  matter  how  complete  may  be  the  compli- 
ance of  the  applicant  with  all  preliminary  conditions. 

The  objections  to  using  courts  as  licensing  authorities 
are  grave.  In  cities,  licenses  are  large  money-prizes,  and 
whoever  awards  many  of  them  year  after  year  is  more  liable 
to  the  suspicion  of  yielding  to  improper  influences  than 
judges  ordinarily  are  in  the  discharge  of  strictly  judicial 
duties.  Wherever  the  judgeships  are  elective  offices,  it  is 
difficult  for  candidates  to  avoid  the  suspicion  that  they  have 
given  pledges  to  the  liquor  interest.  Since  judicial  purity 
and  reputation  for  purity  are  much  more  important  than 
discreet  and  fair  licensing,  it  would  be  wiser  not  to  use 
courts  as  licensing  authorities. 

There  are  also  grave  inherent  objections  to  the  whole 
license  system,  when  resting  on  the  discretion  of  commis- 
sioners, which  the  experience  of  these  eight  States  cannot 
be  said  to  remove.  No  other  element  connected  with  a 
license  does  so  much  to  throw  the  liquor  traffic  into  politics. 
It  compels  the  traffic  to  be  in  politics  for  self-protection. 
It  makes  of  every  licensing  board  a  powerful  political  en- 
gine. A  tax  law  avoids  this  result,  and  is  so  far  an  im- 
provement.    The  Ohio  law  is  a  case  in  point. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

Bonds  are  generally  required  of  licensees.  Experience  has 
proved  that  wholesale  dealers  get  control  of  the  retailers  by 
signing  numerous  bonds  for  them.  This  practice  can  be, 
and  has  been,  prevented  by  legislation  of  various  sorts,  — 
as,  for  example,  by  enacting  (Iowa,  1894)  that  no  person 
shall  sign  more  than  one  bond,  or  (Pennsylvania)  that 
bondsmen  shall  not  be  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  spir- 
ituous or  malt  liquors.  The  appearance  of  office-holders 
and  politicians  on  numerous  bonds,  as  in  Philadelphia, 
might  be  prevented  by  a  law  declaring  that  holders  of  elec- 
tive offices  shall  not  be  accepted  as  bondsmen  for  licensees. 

Before  a  license  for  a  saloon  can  be  issued,  Massachusetts 
requires  the  consent  of  the  owner  of  the  building  in  which 
the  saloon  is  to  be,  and  the  consent  of  the  owners  of  prop- 
erty within  twenty-five  feet  of  the  premises  to  be  occupied 
by  the  saloon.  Iowa  requires  the  consent  of  all  property- 
holders  within  lifty  feet  of  saloon  premises.  The  Missouri 
provision  is  a  thorough  one,  and  can  be  evaded  only  at  con- 
siderable cost  and  risk.  Known  methods  of  evasion  are 
building  and  selling  tenements  so  as  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  voters  in  the  block,  and  dividing  ordinary  lots  into 
many  small  lots  held  by  different  persons. 

It  has  been  a  common  practice  to  require  every  applicant 
for  a  license  to  file  a  certificate,  signed  by  twelve  or  more 
respectable  citizens,  testifying  to  the  applicant's  citizenship 
and  good  character.  This  certificate  is  of  some  value  to  a 
careful  licensing  authority,  but  it  may  conceal  the  careless- 
ness of  an  unconscientious  authority.  In  connection  with 
a  tax  law  it  might  work  well.  In  1872-73,  at  a  time 
when  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  had  declared  local  option 
unconstitutional,  Iowa  demanded  that  this  certificate  should 
be  signed  by  the  majority  of  the  voters  in  the  township, 
city,  or  ward  for  which  the  license  was  asked,  —  thus  se- 
curing a  kind  of  local  option. 

As  a  rule,  the  upper  limit  of  license  fees  in  cities  and 


RESTEICTIONS    ON   THE    SALE.  H 

large  towns  has  by  no  means  been  reached.  The  examples 
of  Missouri  and  St.  Louis  (combined  fee),  North  Adams  in 
Massachusetts,  and  Boston  prove  that  the  traffic  can  be 
made  to  yield  much  more  revenue  than  has  been  supposed. 
In  1888  the  principal  fees  were  doubled  in  Boston  without 
diminishing  the  number  of  applications.  They  were  raised 
again  in  1888.  In  St.  Louis  the  traffic  pays  a  state  tax,  a 
county  tax,  an  ad  valorem  tax  on  all  liquors  received,  and 
a  municipal  tax  whicli  sometime  reaches  $300  a  month  for  a 
single  saloon.  When  a  license  attaches  to  a  place,  and  not 
to  a  person,  the  owner  of  the  shop  fixes  the  rent,  not  by  the 
value  of  the  building  for  any  business,  but  by  the  special 
value  of  the  license.  That  is  a  profit  which  the  munici- 
pality might  absorb  in  the  license  fee. 

RESTRICTIONS    ON    THE    SALE. 

The  most  important  question  with  regard  to  any  form  of 
liquor  legislation  is  this :  Is  it  adapted  to  secure  the  en- 
forcement of  the  restrictions  on  the  sale  of  intoxicants 
which  experience  has  shown  to  be  desirable,  assuming  that 
only  those  restrictions  can  be  enforced  which  commend 
themselves  to  an  enlightened  and  effective  public  sentiment  ? 
The  restrictions  which  the  experience  of  many  years  and 
many  places  has  proved  to  be  desirable  are  chiefly  these  :  — 

There  should  be  no  selling  to  minors,  intoxicated  persons, 
or  habitual  drunkards. 

Tliere  should  be  no  selling  on  Sundays,  election  days,  or 
legal  holidays  in  general,  such  as  Christmas  Day,  Memorial 
Day,  and  the  Fourth  of  July.  Where,  however,  such  a 
restriction  is  openly  disregarded,  as  in  St.  Louis,  it  is  inju- 
rious to  have  it  in  the  law. 

Saloons  should  not  be  allowed  to  become  places  of  enter- 
tainment, and  to  this  end  they  should  not  be  allowed  to 
provide  musical  instruments,  billiard  or  pool  tables,  bowling 
alleys,  cards,  or  dice. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

Saloons  should  not  be  licensed  in  theatres  or  concert 
halls ;  and  no  boxing,  wrestling,  cock-fighting,  or  other 
exhibition  should  be  allowed  in  saloons. 

Every  saloon  should  be  wide  open  to  public  inspection 
from  the  highway,  no  screens  or  partitions  being  permitted. 

There  should  be  a  limit  to  the  hours  of  selling,  and  the 
shorter  the  hours  the  better.  In  the  different  States  sa- 
loons close  at  various  hours.  Thus,  in  Maine  cities  in 
which  saloons  are  openly  maintained,  the  hour  for  closing 
is  ten  p.  M.,  and  in  Massachusetts  it  is  eleven  p.  m.  ;  but 
the  county  dispensaries  of  South  Carolina  close  at  six  p.  m. 

It  has  been  found  necessary  to  prevent  by  police  regu- 
lation the  display  of  obscene  pictures  in  saloons,  and  the 
employment  of  women  as  bar-tenders,  waitresses,  singers, 
or  actresses. 

Most  of  the  above  restrictions  can  be  executed  in  any 
place  where  there  is  a  reasonably  good  police  force,  provided 
that  public  opinion  accepts  such  restrictions  as  desirable. 
If  public  sentiment  does  not  support  them,  they  will  be 
disregarded  or  evaded,  as  they  are  in  St.  Louis,  although 
the  Missoviri  law  is  a  good  one  in  respect  to  restrictions  on 
licensees.  The  prohibition  of  Sunday  selling  is  an  old  re- 
striction in  the  United  States  (Indiana,  1816),  and  the  more 
Sunday  is  converted  into  a  public  holiday  the  more  impor- 
tant this  restriction  becomes,  if  public  sentiment  will  sus- 
tain it. 

All  restrictions  on  the  licensed  saloons  have  a  tendency  to 
develop  illicit  selling ;  but  much  experience  has  proved  that 
illicit  selling  cannot  get  a  large  development  by  the  side  of 
licensed  selling,  if  the  police  administration  be  at  all  efl"ec- 
tive.  It  is  only  in  regions  where  prohibition  prevails  that 
illicit  selling  assumes  large  proportions.  In  license  cities, 
where  the  regulations  forbid  sales  after  ten  or  eleven  o'clock 
on  Saturday  evening  and  sales  on  Sundays,  the  illicit  traffic 
is  most  developed  after  hours  on  Saturday  and  on  Sunday. 


druggists'  licenses.  13 

druggists'  licenses. 

The  selling  of  intoxicants  by  druggists  has  been  a  seri- 
ous difficulty  in  the  way  of  enforcing  prohibitory  laws.  In 
Iowa,  when  the  law  of  1886  closed  large  numbers  of  saloons, 
the  druggists  were  almost  compelled  to  sell  liquors,  —  at 
least  to  their  own  acquaintances  and  regular  customers.  In 
Maine,  the  sale  by  druggists  has  always  been  a  favorite 
mode  of  evading  the  law.  States  which  have  insisted  on  a 
proper  educatioh  of  pharmacists,  and  maintained  a  state 
registry  for  pharmacists,  have  had  an  advantage,  when  the 
closing  of  saloons  has  brought  a  pressure  on  drug-stores  to 
supply  intoxicants  ;  for  the  supervision  of  the  State  secures 
a  higher  class  of  men  in  the  pharmacy  business. 

The  checks  on  the  selling  of  liquor  by  druggists  are  chiefly 
these :  first,  none  but  a  registered  pharmacist  shall  be  in- 
trusted with  a  license  ;  secondly,  no  druggist  shall  sell  in 
small  quantities  without  a  written  prescription  by  a  physi- 
cian, and  this  physician  must  not  be  the  druggist  himself  or 
one  interested  in  the  drug-store.  The  sale  of  liquor  by 
druggists  cannot  be  perfectly  controlled,  however,  by  either 
or  both  of  these  regulations. 

LIQUOR    CASES    IN    THE    COURTS. 

Under  all  sorts  of  liquor  laws  great  diificulty  has  been 
found  in  getting  the  courts  to  deal  effectively  and  promptly 
with  liquor  cases.  Alike  under  the  license  law  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  under  the  prohibition  law  in  Maine,  this  diffi- 
culty has  presented  itself.  In  Maine,  after  more  than 
forty  years'  experience,  and  after  frequent  amendment  of 
the  law  of  1851  with  the  object  of  preventing  delay  in 
dealing  with  liquor  cases,  it  is  still  easy  to  obtain  a  year's 
delay  between  the  commission  of  a  liquor  offense  and  sen- 
tence therefor.  In  Massachusetts,  so  many  cases  were 
placed  on  file   and  nol  pros'd  that,   in    1885,    a   law    was 


14  INTEODUCTION. 

passed  against  the  improper  canceling  of  cases.  This  law 
checked  the  evil.  In  1884,  78  per  cent,  of  all  the  liquor 
cases  were  placed  on  file  or  nol  pros' d  ;  in  1885,  34  per  cent., 
and  in  1893  only  3.41  per  cent.  Wherever  district  attor- 
neys and  judges  are  elected  by  the  people,  this  trouble  is 
likely  to  be  all  the  more  serious.  One  consequence  of  the 
delays  and  miscarriages  in  liquor  cases  is  that  the  legal  pro- 
ceedings in  enforcing  a  liquor  law  become  very  costly  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  sentences  imposed. 

Experience  in  various  States  has  shown  that  the  penalty 
of  imprisonment  prevents  obtaining  convictions  in  liquor 
cases.  This  penalty  has  been  tried  over  and  over  again  by 
ardent  legislators,  but  in  practice  has  never  succeeded,  — 
at  least  for  first  offenses.  Fines  have  seemed  to  ordinary 
judges  and  juries  sufficient  penalties  for  liquor  offenses. 
Laws  with  severe  penalties  have  often  been  passed,  and 
courts  have  often  been  deprived  of  all  choice  between  fine 
and  imprisonment ;  but  in  practice  such  enactments  have 
proved  less  effective  than  milder  ones. 

A  wise  discrimination  is  made  in  some  States  between 
the  fines  for  selling  liquors  in  counties  or  municipalities 
which  have  voted  for  no-license  and  the  fines  for  selling 
without  a  license  in  counties  or  municipalities  which  have 
voted  for  license.  The  first  offense  requires  the  heavier 
fine.  In  Missouri,  for  an  offense  of  the  first  sort  the  fine 
is  from  $300  to  $1,000;  for  an  offense  of  the  second  sort, 
from  $40  to  $200.  In  States  where  a  license  system 
prevails  throughout,  the  fine  for  selling  without  a  license 
needs  to  be  high.  Thus,  in  Pennsylvania,  the  fine  for  this 
offense  is  from  $500  to  $5,000.  It  is,  of  course,  important 
that  the  fine  for  selling  without  a  license  should  be  decid- 
edly higher  than  the  annual  cost  of  a  license. 

It  has  been  thought  necessary  to  stimulate  the  enforce- 
ment of  liquor  laws  by  offering  large  rewards  to  informers. 
Thus,  in  Ohio,  half  the  fine   imposed  goes  to  the  informer. 


TRANSPORTATION   OF   LIQUOR.  15 

whenever  a  house  of  ill-fame  is  convicted  of  selling  liquor. 
In  South  Carolina,  twenty  cents  on  every  gallon  of  con- 
fiscated liquor  is  paid  to  the  informer,  and  any  sheriff  or 
trial  justice  who  seizes  contraband  liquors  is  paid  half  their 
value.  Laws  like  these  excite  intense  animosities,  and  ne- 
cessitate other  laws  for  the  protection  of  informers.  They 
have  been  effective,  however,  in  some  instances. 

TRANSPORTATION    OF    LIQUOR. 

The  subject  of  the  transportation  of  liquor  into  or  within 
a  State  has  been  a  very  difficult  one  for  legislators  in  every 
State  which  has  tried  the  policy  of  prohibition,  or  of  local 
no-license,  or  of  state  monopoly.  Maine  has  struggled  for 
more  than  forty  years  with  the  problem  of  preventing  the 
transportation  of  liquor  intended  for  sale,  but  with  very 
limited  success.  That  State,  however,  presents  peculiar 
difficulties ;  for  it  has  a  much-indented  coast  and  several 
navigable  rivers,  so  that  many  of  its  principal  toAvns  and 
cities  are  accessible  by  water  as  well  as  by  rail.  The  most 
minute  and  painstaking  legislation  has  failed  to  attain  the 
object  of  the  prohibitionists.  In  South  Carolina  the  legis- 
lature has  been  more  successful  in  defending  the  state 
monopoly.  The  lines  of  transportation  are  comparatively 
few.  Severe  penalties  have  been  enacted  against  the  trans- 
portation of  contraband  liquor ;  arbitrary  and  vexatious 
powers  have  been  given  to  sheriffs,  constables,  and  police- 
men ;  and  the  activity  of  the  local  police  has  been  stimulated 
by  a  provision  that  negligent  municipalities  may  be  deprived 
of  their  share  of  the  profits  of  the  state  dispensary.  Legis- 
lation of  this  sort  intensifies  political  dissensions,  incites  to 
social  strife,  and  abridges  the  public  sense  of  self-respecting 
liberty.  In  States  where  local  option  prevails,  transporta- 
tion by  express  between  license  communities  and  no-license 
communities  is  practically  unimpeded. 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

ARRESTS    FOR    DRUNKENNESS. 

Dr.  Wines  and  Mr.  Koren  both  dwell  at  various  points 
on  the  great  difficulty  of  drawing  useful  inferences  from 
tables  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  during  a  series  of  years. 
The  statistics  are  often  imperfect ;  or  the  tables  have  been 
constructed  on  diflerent  principles  in  different  years  ;  or  the 
police  administration  in  the  same  city  has  changed  its 
methods  during  the  period  of  tabulation  ;  or  the  drunk 
law  has  been  altered ;  or  the  policy  of  liquor-sellers  in  re- 
gard to  protecting  intoxicated  persons  from  arrest  has  been 
different  at  different  periods.  In  spite  of  these  difficulties, 
the  statistics  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  may  sometimes 
afford  satisfactory  evidence  concerning  the  working  of  the 
prevailing  liquor  legislation,  although  the  precise  cause  of 
the  increase  or  decrease  of  arrests  may  remain  in  doubt. 
Thus,  in  South  Carolina,  diminution  of  the  number  of  ar- 
rests was  an  undoubted  effect  of  the  Dispensary  Law ;  but 
it  is  not  sure  whether  the  diminution  of  public  drunken- 
ness was  due  to  the  early  hour  of  closing  (six  p.  m.),  or 
to  the  fact  that  no  drinking  on  the  premises  was  allowed 
in  the  state  dispensaries,  or  to  the  great  reduction  in  the 
total  number  of  liquor-shops  in  the  State.  In  Massachu- 
setts, an  important  change  in  the  drunk  law  made  in  1891 
caused  an  increase  of  arrests,  but  a  decrease  of  the  number 
held  for  trial.  In  Philadelphia,  the  percentage  of  arrests 
for  intoxication  and  vagrancy  to  all  arrests  declined  after 
the  enactment  of  the  so-called  "  High-License  Law  ;  "  but 
the  probable  explanation  was  that  the  keepers  both  of 
licensed  saloons  and  of  illicit  shops  protected  drunken 
people.  Another  possible  explanation  was  the  inadequacy 
of  the  police  force  of  Philadelphia.  In  St.  Louis,  wlaere 
the  saloons  are  numerous  and  unrestrained,  public  order  is 
excellent,  and  arrests  for  drunkenness  are  relatively  few; 
but   this  good  condition  is    perhaps  due  as    much  to   the 


DIFFICULTIES   OF   LEGISLATION.  17 

quality  of  the  population  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  liquor 
legislation.  The  fact  suggests  the  doubt  whether  the  amount 
of  drunkenness  is  anywhere  proportionate  to  the  number 
of  saloons. 

BEHOVING    THE    MOTIVE    OF    PRIVATE    PROFIT. 

Iowa  endeavored  to  carry  out  the  philanthropic  idea  of 
removing  from  the  liquor  traffic  the  motive  of  private 
profit,  so  long  ago  as  1854,  by  legislation  which  appointed 
salaried  county  agents  for  the  sale  of  liquor,  the  specific 
reason  given  for  this  legislation  being  that  no  private  person 
might  be  pecuniarily  interested  in  the  sale  of  liquor.  No 
State  has  thus  far  succeeded  in  carrying  out  this  idea.  The 
Dispensary  Law  of  South  Carolina  proposed  to  create  a 
complete  state  monopoly,  with  no  private  licensed  traffic 
and  no  illicit  traffic,  and  with  all  the  profits  of  the  business 
going  to  the  public  treasury.  This  law,  if  successfully 
carried  into  execution,  would,  it  should  seem,  remove  from 
the  traffic  the  motive  of  private  gain.  The  law  has  not 
been  entirely  successful  in  this  respect,  because  the  salaries 
of  dispensers  are  made  to  depend  on  the  amount  of  business 
done  in  their  respective  dispensaries ;  and  it  therefore  be- 
comes the  private  interest  of  the  dispenser  to  enlarge  his 
business  as  much  as  possible.  There  is  at  })resent  no 
American  legislation  efiective  to  this  desirable  end. 

THEORETICAL    DIFFICULTIES    OF    LIQUOR    LEGISLATION. 

The  South  Carolina  Dispensary  Law  well  illustrates  the 
theoretical  difficulties  which  beset  liquor  legislation.  It 
proposes  to  maintain  a  highly  profitable  state  monopoly  of 
the  sale  of  intoxicants.  The  revenue  purpose  is  extremely 
offensive  to  prohibitionists ;  yet  this  motive  appears  plainly 
in  the  practical  administration  of  the  law,  as  well  as  in  its 
theoretical  purpose.  Thus,  for  example,  the  state  dis- 
pensers sell  the  cheapest  kinds  of  distilled  liquor,  because 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

it  is  more  profitable  to  sell  that  liquor  than  any  other,  the 
tastes  and  capacities  of  their  customers  being  considered. 
Again,  the  law  does  not  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  dis- 
tilled, malt,  or  vinous  liquors ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  in 
some  respects  encourages  those  manufactures  within  the 
State.  The  fundamental  conception  in  the  law  is  distinctly 
antagonistic  to  the  theory  that  liquor-selling  is  sinful  or 
unholy  ;  for  the  State  itself  assumes  the  whole  of  that 
business  and  takes  its  profits.  Although  supported  by 
prohibitionists  at  the  time  of  its  enactment,  it  flies  in  the 
face  of  all  logical  prohibitory  theory.  It  has  been  en- 
forced with  a  remarkable  degree  of  success,  but  at  great 
cost  of  political  and  social  antagonisms. 

The  theory  of  the  Ohio  legislation  is  interesting  in  itself, 
and  also  because  it  suggested  the  present  Iowa  legislation. 
In  Ohio,  licensing  is  prohibited  by  the  Constitution ;  but 
when  a  person  is  found  selling  liquor,  he  is  required  to  pay 
a  tax  of  $250,  and  to  give  a  bond  to  observe  certain  re- 
strictions on  selling.  The  tax  is  far  too  low,  particularly 
for  city  saloons ;  and  the  restrictions  are  not  sufficiently 
numerous,  and  in  many  places  are  not  enforced.  Under 
the  law  as  practically  administered,  saloons  are  much  too 
numerous.  On  the  other  hand,  this  law  prevents  in  some 
measure  the  evil  effects  of  liquor  legislation  on  politics. 
There  are  no  licensing  authorities,  no  political  offices  for 
conducting  or  supervising  the  liquor  business,  and  only  a 
moderate  amount  of  liquor  litigation.  These  are  weighty 
recommendations  of  the  law. 

Although  the  Iowa  legislation  was  originally  suggested 
by  the  Ohio  law,  it  has  a  very  different  theoretical  basis. 
In  Iowa,  prohibition  is  the  rule  ;  but  by  paying  a  fee  or 
tax,  and  submitting  to  numerous  well-devised  restrictions, 
a  liquor-seller  may  procure  exemption  from  the  operation 
of  the  prohibitory  law.  Neither  the  Ohio  theory  nor  the 
Iowa  theory  is  satisfactory  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 


LIQUOR   LAWS   IN    POLITICS.  19 

prohibitionists,  any  more  than  the  theory  of  the  South 
Carolina  Dispensary  Law.  In  the  present  state  of  legisla- 
tion, different  laws  must  be  judged  by  their  practical  effects, 
and  not  by  the  ethical  theory  on  which  they  rest. 

PROMOTION    OF    TEMPERANCE    BY    LAW. 

It  cannot  be  positively  affirmed  that  any  one  kind  of 
liquor  legislation  has  been  more  successful  than  another 
in  promoting  real  temperance.  Legislation  as  a  cause  of 
improvement  can  rarely  be  separated  from  other  possible 
causes.  The  influences  of  race  or  nationality  are  appar- 
ently more  important  than  legislation.  That  law  is  best 
which  is  best  administered.  Even  when  external  improve- 
ments have  undoubtedly  been  effected  by  new  legislation,  it 
often  remains  doubtful,  or  at  least  not  demonstrable,  whether 
or  not  the  visible  improvements  have  been  accompanied  by 
a  diminution  in  the  amount  of  drinking.  Thus,  a  reduction 
in  the  number  of  saloons  in  proportion  to  the  population 
undoubtedly  promotes  order,  quiet,  and  outward  decency  ; 
but  it  is  not  certain  that  the  surviving  saloons  sell  less 
liquor  in  total  than  the  previous  more  numerous  saloons. 
Again,  it  is  often  said  that  restrictions  on  drinking  at 
public  bars  tend  to  increase  drinking  at  home  or  in  private, 
and  there  is  probably  truth  in  this  allegation  ;  but  com- 
parative statistics  of  public  and  private  consumption  are  not 
attainable,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  hold  a  well-grounded 
opinion  on  this  point.  The  wise  course  for  the  community 
at  large  is  to  strive  after  all  external,  visible  improvements, 
even  if  it  be  impossible  to  prove  that  internal,  fundamental 
improvement  accompanies  them. 

LIQUOR    LAWS    IN    POLITICS. 

Almost  every  sort  of  liquor  legislation  creates  some  spe- 
cific evil  in  politics.  The  evils  which  result  from  prohibi- 
tory legislation  have  been  already  mentioned.     Under  a 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

license  system,  there  is  great  liability  that  the  process  of 
issuing  licenses  will  breed  some  sort  of  political  corruption. 
Whenever  high-paid  otfices  are  created  by  liquor  legisla- 
tion, those  offices  become  the  objects  of  political  contention. 
When  a  multitude  of  offices  are  created  in  the  execution  of 
liquor  laws,  they  furnish  the  means  of  putting  together  a 
strong  political  machine.  Just  this  has  happened  under 
the  dispensary  system  in  South  Carolina,  where  a  machine 
of  great  capacity  for  political  purposes  has  been  created  in 
a  short  time,  with  the  governor  of  the  State  as  its  engi- 
neer. The  creation  of  this  machine  has  intensified  the 
bitter  political  divisions  which  caused  the  adoption  of  the 
Dispensary  Law  and  made  possible  its  enforcement.  The 
activity  of  liquor-dealers'  associations  in  municipal  politics 
all  over  the  United  States  is  in  one  sense  an  effect  of  the 
numerous  experiments  in  liquor  legislation  which  have  been 
in  progress  during  the  last  thirty  years.  The  traffic,  being 
attacked  by  legislation,  tries  to  protect  itself  by  controlling 
municipal  and  state  legislators. 

The  commonest  issue  over  which  contentions  about  local 
self-government  have  arisen  has  been  the  liquor  issue. 
The  prohibitionists  early  discovered  that  local  police  will 
not  enforce  a  prohibitory  law  in  places  where  public  senti- 
ment is  opposed  to  the  law.  They  therefore  demanded 
that  a  state  constabulary  should  be  charged  with  the  execu- 
tion of  that  law.  This  issue  has  arisen  in  States  whose 
legislation  stops  far  short  of  prohibition.  Thus,  in  Mis- 
souri, the  governor  appoints  the  excise  commissioner  who 
is  the  licensing  authority  in  St.  Louis  ;  and  in  Massachu- 
setts, where  local  option  and  high  license  prevail,  the 
police  commissioners  of  Boston  are  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor. So  far  as  enforcement  of  the  laws  goes,  state-ap- 
pointed officers  or  commissions  have  often  brought  about 
great  improvernents.  In  South  Carolina,  the  Dispensary 
Act  could  not  have  been  enforced  had  it  not  been  that  the 


LIQUOR   LAWS   IN   POLITICS.  21 

governor  was  empowered  to  appoint  an  unlimited  number 
of  constables  to  execute  that  one  law.  He  was  also  em- 
powered to  organize  at  any  moment  a  metropolitan  police 
for  any  city  in  which  the  local  officers  neglected  their 
duties  in  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  the  Dispensary  Act. 
Nevertheless,  violations  of  the  principle  of  local  self-gov- 
ernment are  always  to  be  deplored,  unless  a  municipality 
has  exhibited  an  absolute  incapacity  to  govern  itself,  or 
unless  the  violations  are  plainly  based  on  another  valuable 
principle,  namely,  that  of  voluntary  cooperation  for  com- 
mon ends  whose  scope  transcends  the  limits  of  single 
municipalities. 

There  are,  of  course,  other  promising  directions  for 
efforts  to  promote  temperance,  such  as  the  removal  of  the 
motive  of  private  gain  in  stimulating  the  liquor  traffic,  the 
substitution  of  non-alcoholic  drinks  for  intoxicants  as 
refreshments  or  means  of  ready  hospitality,  and  the  giving 
of  a  preference  in  certain  employments  to  total  abstainers 
or  to  persons  who  never  drink  while  on  duty,  particularly 
in  those  employments  which  have  to  do  with  the  care 
or  supervision  of  human  beings,  animals,  and  machines,  or 
with  transportation  by  land  or  sea ;  but  since  these  interest- 
ing topics  do  not  strictly  belong  to  the  present  legislative 
aspects  of  the  drink  problem,  the  sub-committee  do  not 
dwell  on  them. 

Charles  W.  Eliot, 
Seth  Low, 
James  C.  Carter, 

Suh-committee. 


PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

During  the  first  decades  of  the  century,  drinkmg  was 
general  among  all  classes  of  men  in  Maine,  as  elsewhere  in 
New  England.  Workmen  in  the  fields,  in  the  woods,  and 
in  the  towns  were  supplied  with  daily  rations  of  spirits,  — 
a  half  gill  of  rura-and-water  at  eleven  o'clock  in  the  fore- 
noon, and  again  at  four  in  the  afternoon.  No  gathering 
of  men  or  social  function  took  place  unaccompanied  by 
more  or  less  drinking.  Every  well-to-do  family  kept  a 
stock  of  rum,  gin,  and  brandy.  Etiquette  demanded  that 
every  visitor  or  traveler  to  be  honored  should  be  offered 
the  social  glass.  Supplies  of  liquor  could  be  obtained  from 
any  general  trader,  as  well  as  from  innholders. 

The  first  temperance  movement  started  somewhat  sud- 
denly, during  the  winter  of  1826-27,  in  the  small  town  of 
East  Machias.  This  has  been  described  as  ''  unique  and 
original,  —  a  serious  undertaking,  by  thoughtful,  patriotic, 
and  moral  men,  to  arrest  the  ravages  of  intemperance." 
They  worked  "  without  a  model  or  known  exemplar." 
The  movement  was  essentially  religious  in  its  origin.  In 
East  Machias  it  followed  close  upon  a  strong  religious 
revival.  A  temperance  society  was  formed,  the  primary 
article  of  its  constitution  being  a  pledge  of  total  abstinence 
from  distilled  spirits  as  a  beverage.  Heavy  malt  liquors 
were  at  that  time  unknown  ;  wine  was  a  rare  luxury,  and  its 
sacramental  use  removed  it  from  the  category  of  intoxi- 
cants, while  its  use  at  every  "  proper  wedding  "  gave  it 
almost  an  equal  sanctity.  The  new  asceticism  in  drink 
became  a  universal    enthusiasm.     Almost    all    respectable 


EARLY  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENTS,         23 

persons  took  the  pledge.  Members  of  tlie  church  were  ex 
officio  members  of  the  temperance  society.  To  declare 
against  the  reform  was  equivalent  to  breaking  with  the 
church.  The  movement  spread  from  place  to  place  with 
the  same  results,  chiefly  through  the  agency  of  the  churches. 
A  radical  change  in  the  habits  of  the  people  followed. 
"Treating"  ceased.  Total  abstinence  became  more  the 
rule  than  the  exception,  and  was  even  in  places  made  a 
conditio  sine  qua  non  of  social  consideration.  The  daily 
ration  of  rum  to  laboring  men  was  stopped.  The  early 
reformers  did  not  hold  the  sellers  of  liquor  alone  responsi- 
ble for  the  consequences  resulting  to  the  buyer  and  con- 
sumer. "  The  scorn  of  scorns  was  launched  against  the 
moderate  drinker  and  sober  men  who  opposed  the  reform." 

The  climax  of  this  primitive  temperance  movement  was 
reached,  perhaps,  before  1838.  The  "  Maine  Register " 
for  1831  (the  official  year-book  of  the  State),  in  summa- 
rizing its  eff"ects,  said  that  "  the  quantity  of  ardent  spirits 
consumed  in  INIaine  has  been  reduced  two  thirds  within 
three  years."  It  declared,  too,  that  the  change  in  the 
moral  aspect  of  society  where  temperance  reformation  had 
prevailed  was  "  ample  encouragement  to  the  friends  of 
human  happiness  to  become  the  firm  friends  of  temper- 
ance ;  "  and  it  quoted  and  approved  the  opinion  of  a  good 
observer,  that  "  a  complete  change  has  taken  place,  not 
only  in  sentiment  and  feeling,  but  in  action  also." 

Naturally  such  a  powerful  upheaval  in  society  left  some 
impress  on  legislation,  although  such  a  thing  as  prohibition 
had  apparently  not  yet  entered  the  minds  of  the  reformers. 
What  may  be  termed  a  rudimentary  local-option  law,  which 
required  a  yea  vote  at  the  annual  town  meeting  before 
license  to  retail  dealers  for  consumption  on  the  premises 
could  be  granted,  was  enacted  in  1829.  But  the  year  1834 
marks  a  return  to  an  ordinary  license  law.  This  year  a 
petition  signed  by  140  women  of  the  town  of   Brunswick 


24  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE    AND   ITS   KESULTS.     • 

urged  legislative  action  in  the  matter  of  "  regulating  or 
forbidding  altogether "  the  sale  of  intoxicants.  Yet  not 
even  the  leaders  of  the  so-called  Washingtonian  movement, 
which  superseded  the  primitive  one  and  reached  Maine  in 
1840,  were  advocates  of  prohibition.  In  an  address  before 
the  Washington  Temperance  Society  in  1841,  John  T. 
Walton  said  :  "  Washingtonians  are  '  firm  believers  in  the 
efficacy  and  power  of  moral  suasion ;  this  they  believe  to 
be  the  main  lever ;  they  hold  that  doctrine  to  be  unsound 
which  includes  the  principle  of  coercion,  and  therefore  they 
cannot  go  hand  in  hand  with  those  who  cry  out,  '  Give 
us  the  strong  arm  of  the  law,'  " 

The  question  of  prohibition  by  law,  first  proposed  by 
General  Appleton,  was  agitated  after  the  famous  political 
campaign  of  the  Log  Cabin  and  Hard  Cider,  when  a  back- 
ward step  had  been  taken,  and  moderate  tippling  again 
became  common  in  circles  where  it  had  been  unknown. 
During  the  decade  of  1840-50  it  grew  little  by  little  into 
the  dignity  of  a  political  issue,  and  such  it  has  remained 
ever  since.  The  first  prohibitory  law  was  enacted  in  1846. 
This,  however,  did  not  touch  manufacture.  It  empowered 
selectmen  of  towns  to  license  a  limited  number  of  places 
(1  to  1,000  inhabitants,  2  to  3,000,  and  so  on)  to  sell 
wines  and  strong  liquors  for  medicinal  and  mechanical 
purposes  only,  and  prohibited  all  other  sale.  There  is  no 
evidence  to  show  that  this  law  was  ever  rigidly  enforced. 

Meanwhile  the  prohilntion  issue  had  assumed  important 
proportions,  finding  its  main  support  not,  hov/ever,  among 
the  Democrats.  In  1849  the  Democratic  State  Convention 
determined  to  kill  off  temperance  and  the  opposing  party 
at  one  stroke  by  ridicule.  Accordingly  the  committee  on 
resolutions  inserted  a  plank  in  the  platform  calling  for  the 
absolute  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 
Of  600  members  of  the  convention,  all  but  two  voted  for 
it.      At  the  next  election  the  Democrats  carried  the   State, 


THE   MAINE   LAW   OF   1851.  25 

electing  Hubbard  governor  ;  and  a  Democratic  legislature 
passed  what  has  since  become  widely  known  as  the  Maine 
Law.  This  measure  was  drafted  by  General  Neal  Dow, 
and  signed  by  Governor  Hubbard  June  2,  1851.  It  pro- 
hibited the  manufacture  of  intoxicants,  and  their  sale  except 
by  agents  authorized  by  towns  to  sell  for  medicinal  and 
mechanical  purposes  only ;  provided  for  the  punishment  of 
first  offenses  by  fines,  subsequent  offenses  by  fines  and 
imprisonment ;  made  clerks,  servants,  and  agents  equally 
guilty  with  their  principals ;  and  made  it  the  duty  of  se- 
lectmen of  towns  and  mayors  or  aldermen  of  cities  to  pros- 
ecute violation  of  the  law  upon  the  information  of  compe- 
tent persons. 

The  legal  machinery  which  had  been  created  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  not  proving  equal  to  the  task,  in 
1853  further  legislation  was  enacted,  dealing  principally 
with  the  form  of  procedure  in  case  of  violation,  and  elabo- 
rating the  search,  seizure,  and  forfeiture  clauses  ;  providing, 
among  other  things,  for  the  issue  of  warrants  to  search 
for,  seize,  and  destroy  liquor  upon  the  complaint  of  three 
persons. 

This  was  the  year  of  the  celebrated  "  rum  riot "  in  Port- 
land. Political  capital  was  made  of  the  turbulent  scenes 
following  upon  attempts  to  enforce  the  law,  and  the  agita- 
tion culminated  in  1856  in  its  repeal.  Only  the  year 
previous  the  law  had  been  entirely  reenacted,  its  various 
provisions  —  especially  the  search,  seizure,  and  forfeiture 
features  —  strengthened,  in  the  hope  of  meeting  every  emer- 
gency. But  the  public  mind  was  more  concerned  with  the 
question  whether  it  ought  to  remain  on  the  statute  book 
than  with  measures  for  its  enforcement.  It  had  now  be- 
come a  political  football,  as  is  shown  by  the  election  returns 
during  this  period.  Of  the  whole  vote  cast  for  governor 
in  1852  (94,707),  the  anti- Maine  Law  candidate  received 
21,774.     In  1853  the  Democrats  were  victorious,  the  Maine 


26  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

Law  candidate  having  only  11,027  out  of  83,627  votes  cast. 
But  in  the  following  year  the  prohibitory  candidate,  who 
represented  the  Know-nothings  also,  was  elected.  His 
declaration,  however,  that  the  people  favored  the  prohibi- 
tory law,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  vindicated,  for  in 
1856,  as  has  been  stated,  it  was  repealed,  and  a  limited 
license  law  substituted,  which  remained  in  force  until  1858. 

The  question  of  reviving  the  prohibitory  law  was  then 
submitted  to  popular  vote  and  carried.  The  new  measure 
adopted  was  even  more  elaborate  than  those  preceding  it. 
The  various  penalties  for  violations  were  nearly  all  in- 
creased. All  houses  used  for  illegal  traffic  were  declared 
to  be  common  nuisances,  and  the  penalty  for  keeping  such 
houses  was  fixed  at  a  maximum  fine  of  $1,000  or  imprison- 
ment for  one  year  ;  while  the  lease  of  the  seller,  if  a  tenant, 
was  made  void.  New  forms  of  procedure  for  prosecution 
were  also  established. 

Of  the  difficulties  attending  the  attempts  at  enforce- 
ment, perhaps  no  more  incontestable  evidence  can  be  found 
than  the  very  amendments  which  it  has  been  thought  neces- 
sary to  add  from  year  to  year.  From  prohibitionist  ranks 
has  come  a  continual  cry  for  more  law.  Of  the  nearly 
fifty  amendments  enacted  since  1858,  we  shall  note  briefly 
the  most  important. 

During  the  Civil  War,  graver  issues  than  the  mending  of 
liquor  laws  demanding  the  attention  of  the  State,  the  ques- 
tion of  enforcement  fell  into  abeyance.  One  important 
act,  however,  was  passed  in  1862.  This  created  the  office  of 
state  liquor  commissioner,  appointed  by  the  governor,  with 
the  duty  of  furnishing  the  various  city  and  town  agencies 
with  pure  unadulterated  liquors,  for  sale  for  medicinal  and 
mechanical  purposes  only.  All  liquor  agents  were  obliged 
to  purchase  their  stores  from  this  official,  and  he  was  al- 
lowed a  seven  per  cent,  commission  on  sales.  By  an  act  of 
1864,  all  malt  beverages  were  classed  under  the  head  of 


SUPPLEMENTARY    LEGISLATION".  27 

intoxicating  liquors.  The  difficulty  in  securing  honest  and 
active  local  officials  who  could  be  implicitly  trusted  to  exe- 
cute the  law  early  arose.  Accordingly,  in  18G7,  state  con- 
stabulary were  created.  These  officials  were  required,  upon 
the  application  of  ten  or  more  voters  in  a  district,  to  ap- 
point deputies  to  execute  the  law,  not  more  than  ten  in  any 
county,  or  thirty  for  the  whole  State.  They  were  to  act 
only  in  case  of  failure  or  inability  of  the  local  officials  to 
secure  enforcement.  In  the  same  year  the  penalties  for 
illegal  selling  were  increased  by  imposing  imprisonment,  in 
addition  to  the  fine,  for  from  thirty  days  to  three  months 
on  the  first  conviction,  according  to  the  offense.  But  the 
law  had  advanced  farther  than  public  sentiment,  and  it  was 
deemed  necessary  in  1868  to  modify  the  imprisonment 
clause,  making  the  imposition  of  this  penalty  discretionary 
with  the  courts,  and  to  repeal  the  act  of  the  previous  year 
providing  for  a  state  police  in  certain  cases.  By  an  act  of 
1870  it  was  provided  that  a  search  and  seizure  warrant 
might  be  taken  out  on  the  sworn  complaint  of  only  one 
instead  of  three  persons  as  formerly  required.  Municipal 
officers  were  also  required  to  institute  proceedings  against 
offenders  upon  a  written  notice  of  any  violation  of  the  law, 
under  a  penalty  of  from  $20  to  $50.  The  same  year  a 
measure  was  passed  forbidding  traveling  agents  to  sell 
liquors  and  solicit  orders.  An  act  of  1872  provided  for 
the  appointment  of  liquor  agents,  at  the  option  of  any  city 
or  town,  to  sell  for  medicinal  and  mechanical  purposes  only, 
and  derive  no  profit  from  the  sales.  Again  a  distrust  of 
the  efficiency  of  local  officials  manifested  itself  in  an  act  of 
this  year,  which  enjoined  upon  the  sheriffs  and  their  dep- 
uties to  inquire  with  particular  diligence  into  violations 
of  the  liquor  laws  by  prompt  entering  of  complaints,  execu- 
tion of  warrants,  or  by  furnishing  the  county  attorney  with 
the  names  of  alleged  offenders  and  of  witnesses.  In  1873 
the  term  "  nuisance  "  was  made  applicable   to  any   house, 


28  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

shop,  or  place  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold  for  tip- 
pling purposes.  In  1874  an  act  provided  that  no  offense 
against  the  liquor  laws  should  be  barred  by  any  period  of 
time  less  than  six  years  after  the  commission  thereof. 

In  1875  it  was  first  sought  to  guard  against  the  transpor- 
tation of  liquors  into  or  from  place  to  place  within  the 
State,  with  intent  to  sell  the  same  in  violation  of  the  law,  a 
penalty  of  $50  being  fixed  for  each  off"ense,  with  the  liability 
of  having  the  liquors  seized  while  in  transit.  In  1877 
the  sale  of  liquor  manufactured  within  the  State  was  made 
punishable  by  a  fine  of  $1,000  and  imprisonment  for  two 
months.  Cider,  which  had  hitherto  been  exempt,  was  now 
classed  with  intoxicating  liquors  when  kept  for  sale  or  for 
tippling  purposes.  The  numerous  amendments  enacted  from 
1880  to  1884  seem  to  indicate  an  active  opposition  to  the  law 
and  a  lax  public  opinion,  no  less  than  a  determined  effort 
on  the  part  of  its  advocates  to  enforce  it.  The  fine  for  ille- 
gal selling  was  now  raised  to  $100,  and  in  default  of  pay- 
ment the  offender  was  to  suffer  imprisonment  at  hard  labor 
for  three  months,  and,  for  a  subsequent  conviction,  six 
months  at  hard  labor  and  a  fine.  But  this  act  evidently, 
by  its  very  severity,  overshot  the  mark,  for  in  1883  the 
penalty  was  again  reduced  to  a  fine  of  $30  or  sixty  days' 
imprisonment ;  for  subsequent  offenses  imprisonment  in  ad- 
dition to  fine  being  imposed.  Common  sellers  were  more 
severely  dealt  with. 

The  difficulty  in  securing  efficient  service  from  local  of- 
ficers was  again  encountered,  and  accordingly  the  governor 
was  authorized  to  appoint,  on  the  petition  of  thirty  or  more 
tax-payers  in  any  county,  two  or  more  constables  to  enforce 
the  laws,  when  shown  that  the  county  or  local  officers  neg- 
lected their  duty.  The  governor  was  further  empowered 
to  remove  county  attorneys  for  not  attending  promptly  to 
liquor  cases.  The  same  year  the  sale  of  cider  was  further 
restricted.      Once   more   it   was  deemed   necessary   to   pre- 


THE   PROHIBITORY   AMENDMENT.  29 

scribe  anew  the  methods  to  be  employed  in  executing  search 
warrants,  and  it  was  further  provided  that  all  liquor  con- 
fiscated should  be  destroyed. 

Thus  far,  by  persistent  effort,  the  prohibitionists  had 
succeeded  in  fortifying  the  prohibitory  law.  The  Repub- 
lican party,  pledged  in  a  measure  to  its  support,  was  not 
unwilling  to  accede  to  the  demands  for  new  legislative 
enactments,  at  least  up  to  a  certain  point,  in  return  for 
political  favors.  The  strongest  adherents  of  the  law  vir- 
tually formed  already  a  third  party  holding  the  balance 
of  power.  But,  not  content  with  their  achievements,  they 
now  advocated  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  prohibit- 
inc  forever  the  manufacture  as  well  as  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
eating  liquors,  except  the  sale  for  medicinal  and  mechanical 
purposes,  and  the  sale  of  cider  under  certain  restrictions. 

THE    PROHIBITORY    CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT    OF 

1884. 

The  question  of  the  amendment  was  submitted  to  popu- 
lar vote  in  1884.  The  vote  was  surprisingly  small,  and  it 
is  open  to  doubt  how  far  it  represented  the  sober  judgment 
of  the  people ;  but  the  amendment  received  a  large  major- 
ity. Many  Republicans  had  declared  their  opposition  to 
the  measure,  yet  it  was  a  party  measure,  and  as  such  they 
submitted  to  it,  but  with  reluctance.  The  secret  ballot  was 
at  that  time  unknown  in  Maine.  The  opportunity  was 
therefore  open  to  those  patrolling  the  polling-places  to  in- 
fluence the  voters  by  every  device  known  to  electioneers, 
and  they  were  not  slow  in  grasping  it.  And,  lastly,  the 
country  was  on  the  eve  of  a  presidential  election.  The 
Democrats  spared  no  effort  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
Republican  candidate  for  the  presidency  favored  constitu- 
tional prohibition,  in  the  hope  of  drawing  votes  from  him, 
especially  in  Western  States  with  a  large  German  population. 

Setting  aside  the  question  as  to  how  far  the  amendment 


30  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND    ITS    RESULTS. 

expressed  the  honest  conviction  of  the  people,  it  is  certain 
that  it  did  not  help  materially  to  suppress  the  liquor  traffic. 
In  the  very  year  that  it  went  into  effect,  further  legisla- 
tive enactments  were  called  for.  The  maximum  penalty  for 
carrying  on  the  business  of  a  traveling  liquor  peddler  or 
salesman  was  increased  from  $100  to  $500  and  costs  for 
each  offer  to  take  an  order,  and  for  each  order  or  sale  so 
taken  or  made.  The  penalties  for  illegal  sales  were  again 
changed,  the  second  and  subsequent  offenses  being  more 
severely  dealt  with  than  before.  Elaborate  modes  of  pro- 
cedure in  case  of  searches  and  seizures  were  again  provided. 
Advertising  the  sale  of  liquor  was  made  punishable.  The 
clerks  of  court  were  required  to  make  public  the  disposition 
of  all  appealed  liquor  cases  and  indictments  within  thirty 
days  after  the  adjournment  of  any  superior  court. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  (1887)  an  impor- 
tant section  was  added  to  the  law,  which,  for  reasons  later 
apparent,  is  here  given  in  full :  — 

"  The  payment  of  the  United  States  special  tax  as  a  liquor- 
seller,  or  notice  of  any  kind  in  any  place  of  resort  indicating 
that  intoxicating  liquors  are  there  kept,  sold,  or  given  away, 
shall  be  held  to  he  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  person  or  per- 
sons paying  such  tax,  and  the  party  or  parties  displaying  such 
notice,  are  common  sellers  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  the 
premises  kept  by  tliem  common  nuisances." 

A  change  in  the  office  of  the  state  liquor  commissioner 
was  also  made  during  this  year.  This  official  was  placed 
on  a  salary,  compelled  to  furnish  bonds  in  the  sum  of 
$10,000,  and  authorized  to  charge  a  commission  of  six  per 
cent,  above  cost  on  sales,  to  be  paid  over  to  the  state  treas- 
urer. A  fine  was  prescribed  in  case  he  should  be  found 
guilty  of  selling  impure  liquors.  For  removal  of  liquor 
from  railroad  cars  at  any  but  the  established  stations  a  fine 
of  $50  was  imposed. 

In  1890  the  question  of  repealing  the  prohibitory  amend- 


THE    PKOHIBITORY   AMENDMENT.  31 

ment  was  voted  upon,  and  an  emphatic  majority  declared 
against  repeal,  A  repeal  would  have  been  equivalent  to 
declaring  the  failure  of  Republican  policy  in  the  State,  —  a 
step  which  the  leaders  of  the  dominant  party  naturally 
avoided. 

During  1892-93  more  noteworthy  changes  in  the  law 
were  effected.  The  penalties  for  selling  were  increased  by 
imposing  imjirisonment  in  addition  to  the  fine.  The  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  conviction,  with  the  discretionary  power 
of  the  courts  taken  away,  soon  became  evident,  and  it  was 
enhanced  by  the  prevalent  opinion  of  the  judiciary  that  the 
punishments  were  incommensurate  with  the  crime.  Chiefly 
through  the  influence  of  the  landlords'  association,  a  clause 
was  incorporated  into  the  laws  making  it  discretionary  with 
the  courts  to  impose  either  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both 
where  both  are  prescribed.  It  should  be  said,  however, 
that  the  consideration  of  this  clause  did  not  come  under 
the  head  of  liquor  laws,  and  the  legislators  generally  were 
not  aware  of  its  true  purport  until  it  had  passed  the  House. 

A  summary  of  the  law  as  now  in  force  follows :  it  pro- 
hibits, — 

1,  Selling  intoxicating  liquors  (except  for  medicinal  and 
mechanical  purposes  by  city  and  town  agents)  under  a  penalty 
of  f .50  and  thirty  days'  imprisonment ;  for  subsequent  convic- 
tions, a  fine  of  $200  and  six  months'  imprisonment. 

2,  Being  a  common  seller  (that  is,  a  person  known  to  liave 
effected  three  or  more  sales  of  liquor),  under  a  penalty  of  $100 
and  thirty  days'  imprisonment ;  on  subsequent  convictions,  a 
fine  of  $200  and  sixty  days'  imprisonment, 

3,  Keeping  a  drinking-house  and  tippling-shop,  under  a  pen- 
alty of  $100  and  sixty  days'  imprisonment, 

4,  Depositing  or  having  in  possession  liquor  with  intent  to 
sell  in  violation  of  law,  or  with  intent  that  any  other  jierson 
shall  sell,  or  to  aid  any  person  in  such  sale,  under  a  penalty  of 
$100  and  sixty  days'  imprisonment, 

5,  Traveling  from  place  to  place,  carrying  or  offering  for 
sale,  or  obtaining  or  offering  to  obtain,  orders  for  the  sale  or 


32  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE   AND    ITS    RESULTS. 

delivery  of  liquor,  under  a  penalty  of  from  $20  to  $500,  and,  in 
default  of  payment,  imprisonment  of  from  two  to  six  months. 

6.  Knowingly  bringing  into  the  State,  or  transporting  from 
place  to  place  in  the  State,  liquor  with  intent  to  sell,  or  with 
intent  that  any  other  person  shall  sell,  under  a  penalty  of  $200 
and  costs  for  each  offense. 

7.  Manufacturing  for  sale  any  intoxicating  liquors,  with  the 
exception  of  cider,  under  a  penalty  of  $1,000  and  imprisonment 
of  two  months. 

8.  Maintaining  a  nuisance,  which  is  thus  defined  :  all  places 
used  for  the  sale  or  depositing  of  intoxicating  liquors,  or  where 
intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  for  tippling  purposes,  and  all 
places  of  resort  where  intoxicating  liquors  are  kept,  sold, 
given  away,  drunk,  or  dispensed  in  any  manner  not  provided 
by  law ;  the  penalty  being  a  fine  not  exceeding  $1,000  or  im- 
prisonment for  one  year. 

Further  provisions  are : 

The  payment  of  the  United  States  special  tax  by  any  person 
as  a  liquor-dealer,  or  the  displaying  of  such  a  tax  on  his  prem- 
ises, to  be  prima  facie  evidence  that  he  is  a  common  seller. 

Any  judge  of  a  municijial  court  or  trial  justice  to  issue  a 
search  warrant  upon  the  sworn  complaint  of  a  person  compe- 
tent to  be  sworn  as  a  witness  in  a  civil  suit  that  he  believes 
intoxicating  liquors  are  unlawfully  kept  in  any  place  and 
intended  for  sale ;  liquors  found  to  be  seized  and  immediate 
return  to  be  made  on  the  warrant. 

Persons  suspected  of  selling  from  their  j^ockets  to  be  searched 
in  the  same  manner  as  above.  The  penalty  for  these  offenses, 
a  fine  of  $100  and  costs  and  imprisonment  for  sixty  days ;  in 
default  of  payment,  sixty  days  additional. 

The  provisions  of  the  law  apply  to  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  imported  in  original  packages. 

The  Drunk  Law  in  Maine  has  undergone  several  changes 
since  1859.  In  that  year  the  law  prescribed  as  the  penalty 
for  intoxication  and  disturbing  of  the  peace  a  maximum 
fine  of  five  dollars ;  and  for  a  second  offense  a  maximum 
fine  of  ten  dollars,  or  imprisonment  for  not  exceeding  sixty 
days.  The  punishment  could  be  remitted,  however,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court.  In  1880 
the  penalty  was  made  imprisonment  at  labor  instead  of  a 


THE   PROHIBITOKY   AMENDMENT.  33 

fine,  extending  to  ninety  days  for  a  second  offense.  The 
sentence  could  not  be  remitted  unless  the  prisoner,  under 
oath,  gave  information  from  whom  and  where  he  had  ob- 
tained liquor.  Three  years  later,  drunkenness  was  again 
made  punishable  by  a  maximum  fine  of  ten  dollars,  or  thirty 
days'  imprisonment ;  and,  for  a  second  offense,  by  a  maxi- 
mum fine  of  twenty  dollars,  or  ninety  days'  imprisonment. 
In  1885  the  fines  were  abolished,  and  imprisonment  alone 
imposed.  In  1887  a  first  offense  was  once  more  made 
finable,  but  for  a  subsequent  conviction  thirty  days'  im- 
prisonment was  made  the  penalty.  At  the  present  time, 
the  punishment  for  intoxication  is  a  fine  not  exceeding  ten 
dollars,  or  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  thirty  days  ; 
on  a  subsequent  conviction,  imprisonment  alone  for  thirty 
days.  The  discretionary  power  of  the  court  has  been 
restored  without  requiring  information  from  the  prisoner 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  became  drunk. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  prohibitionists  in  Maine 
direct  their  efforts  solely  to  crush  the  liquar-sellers.  The 
deliberate  and  voluntary  buyer  of  drink  is  in  no  wise 
touched  by  the  law.  The  explanation  ottered  of  this  fact, 
which  is  somewhat  singular  in  view  of  the  other  fact  that 
the  sale  of  intoxicants  is  regarded  as  a  crime  per  se,  is 
that  any  piece  of  legislation  aimed  at  the  drink-buyer 
would  certainly  fail  to  pass.  The  most  ardent  supporters 
of  the  law  yet  complain  loudly  of  its  inadequacy.  The 
new  measures  urgently  needed,  they  say,  are  enactments 
depriving  the  courts  of  all  discretionary  power  in  punishing 
offenders,  prescribing  one  penalty  of  the  severest  kind  for 
every  infringement  of  the  law  and  changing  the  forms  of 
procedure,  in  order  that  there  may  be  less  delay  in  the 
final  adjudication  of  liquor  cases. 

The  ruling  party  is  chary  in  its  concessions  to  the  prohi- 
bitionists, evincing  no  disposition  to  legislate  further  than 
party  advantage  dictates,    and  to  hold  the  prohibitionists' 


34  PKOHIBITION   IN  MAINE   AND   ITS   KESULTS. 

support.  It  is  between  two  fires,  —  on  one  side,  the  pro- 
hibitionists, backed  by  a  powerful  lobby,  depending  mainly 
upon  moral  influence  and  the  ballot-box ;  on  the  other,  the 
liquor  element,  wielding  a  telling  money  influence  as  well 
as  commanding  a  large  vote.  That  many  of  the  acts  relat- 
ing to  the  prohibitory  law  have  been  passed  through  party 
exigencies,  and  not  through  moral  conviction,  has  long  since 
been  accepted  as  a  fact  by  those  who  have  observed  the 
tactics  of  the  legislatures. 

THE  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND. 

It  has  been  authoritatively  stated  that  the  many  amend- 
ments to  the  liquor  laws  were  enacted  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  meeting  the  needs  of  the  city  of  Portland. 
However  this  may  be,  in  no  other  city  have  such  strenuous 
efforts  been  made  to  suppress  the  liquor  trafiic  as  here. 
The  prohibitionists  have  long  recognized  that  success  in 
Portland  —  the  commercial,  political,  and  intellectual  capi- 
tal of  the  State  —  would  insure  success  elsewhere. 

The  city  is  not  afflicted  with  a  vicious  floating  popula- 
tion, its  inhabitants  are  chiefly  of  native  stock ;  there  are 
no  extensive  manufacturing  interests  drawing  together  large 
numbers  of  operatives  of  the  same  class  ;  indeed,  the  condi- 
tions for  a  fair  test  of  the  prohibitory  law  have  been  and 
are  as  good  there  as  in  any  seaport  of  its  size  in  the  coun- 
try. The  facilities  for  obtaining  illicit  supplies  through 
the  proximity  of  Boston  do  not  count  for  much,  consid- 
ering the  means  of  communication  existing  almost  every- 
where at  the  present  day.  It  should  be  remembered  also 
that  Portland,  as  the  home  of  some  of  the  most  determined 
and  influential  promoters  of  prohibition,  —  notably  General 
Neal  Dow,  —  has  never  been  without  an  anti-saloon  senti- 
ment of  the  strongest  nature.  Yet  how  far  short  of  en- 
forcement the  law  lias  fallen  will  now  appear :  — 

With  the  prohibitory  attempts  previous  to  1858  we  need 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  THE   LAW   IN   PORTLAND.  35 

not  concern  ourselves,  since  there  was  a  license  interregnum 
for  two  years  (1856-58)  after  the  passage  of  the  first 
Maine  Law.^  In  1860  it  is  estimated  that  liquor  was  sold 
at  266  places.  This  would  seem  to  be  much  exaggerated 
but  for  the  records  kept  by  wholesale  liquor-dealers  from 
that  period.  The  great  national  questions  of  the  time  natu- 
rally overshadowed  local  issues.  It  is  a  matter  of  record 
that  men  grew  wealthy  in  the  liquor  trade  during  the  Civil 
War.  In  these  years  and  until  1868  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  lay  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  local  author- 
ities. The  police  were  not  slow  to  discover  that  the 
presence  of  liquor-sellers  might  be  turned  to  their  own 
advantage  in  a  twofold  manner,  —  first,  by  exacting  from 
them  fees  for  protection,  and,  secondly,  by  holding  them  to 
certain  political  promises.  That  blackmail  was  regularly 
levied  by  the  police  as  early  as  in  the  sixties  is  unquestion- 
ably true.  The  advocates  of  the  Maine  Law  had  already 
become  convinced  in  1867,  principally  we  believe  on  ac- 
count of  conditions  in  Portland,  that  the  local  authorities 
could  not  be  trusted  to  execute  it  rigidly,  since  in  that 
year  the  act  creating  state  constables  was  passed.  The 
work  of  these  officials  in  Portland  was  a  conspicuous  fail- 
ure. According  to  the  statements  of  persons  who  had 
direct  dealings  with  them,  their  practices  were  no  better 
than  those  of  the  police.  The  "  Sheriff  Law  "  of  1872  — 
passed,  it  is  said,  under  the  promise  that  it  should  not 
become  effective  —  made  it  the  duty  of  the  county  sheriff 
and  his  deputies  to  annihilate  the  liquor  traffic,  and,  so  far 
as  Portland  is  concerned,  the  prohibitionists  have  ever 
since  placed  their  main  dependence  upon  these  officials. 

1  Of  the  total  population  of  Portland,  36,425  (censiis  of  1890),  7,825  are 
foreign-born,  and  8,730  of  fort'ltrn  parents.  The  foreign-born  with  respect 
to  country  of  nativitv  are  :  Ireland,  3,140;  Canada  and  Newfoundland, 
2,923;  England,  544;  Scotland,  190;  Denmark,  198;  Sweden,  175;  Russia, 
170;  Germany,  152;  Norway,  134;  other  countries,  239.  Those  coming 
from  the  Provinces  are  nearly  all  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  Most  of  the 
nationalities  represented  are  well  advanced  toward  Americanization. 


36  PEOHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS    RESULTS. 

Under  the  regime  of  the  first  sheriff,  the  law  was  hon- 
estly and  impartially  enforced,  so  far  as  it  lay  in  his  power 
to  enforce  it,  but  the  support  given  him  by  other  officials 
was  not  such  as  to  check  the  sale  of  liquor  permanently. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  more  than  a  decade  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  sheriff  law,  ''  respectable  saloons  where  gentle- 
men could  go  "  flourished  in  the  city.  Until  the  adoption 
of  the  constitutional  amendment  in  1884,  the  officials  gen- 
erally contented  themselves  with  compelling  the  saloon- 
keepers to  close  their  shops  at  ten  o'clock  at  night  and  on 
Sundays.  An  attempt  in  1885  at  enforcement  was  only 
partially  successful,  as  may  be  judged  from  the  fact  that  in 
the  year  following  at  least  158  liquor-shops  were  known  to 
exist  in  the  city.  Open  violation  of  the  law  was  the  rule 
until  the  election  of  the  sheriff  in  1891. 

That  the  cause  of  temperance  had  made  considerable  and 
lasting  gains,  especially  in  the  twenty  years  preceding  the 
adoption  of  the  constitutional  amendment,  is  unquestionably 
true,  but  it  is  difficult  to  trace  in  these  gains  the  direct 
effects  of  prohibitory  law.  Thus  it  is  not  observable  that 
the  attitude  of  the  more  representative  citizens  on  the  drink 
question  was  any  different  from  the  attitude  of  the  same 
class  of  men  in  other  States.  Men  who  abstained,  abstained 
voluntarily,  not  because  of  the  law.  While  the  public  temp- 
tation had  in  some  degree  diminished  by  the  abolition  of 
"  gilt-edge  "  saloons,  there  lurked  a  greater  danger  in  the 
many  clubs  which  had  sprung  up,  chiefly  for  drinking  pur- 
poses. No  distilleries  or  breweries  were  suffered  to  exist  in 
the  city.  Yet  neither  the  supply  nor  the  price  of  liquors 
was  lessened,  but  the  quality  was  worse.  While  the  traffic  at 
open  bars  had  from  time  to  time  been  to  some  extent  driven 
away  from  the  principal  streets,  still  open  bars  existed  in 
large  numbers.  Furthermore,  to  those  who  shunned  the 
open  bars  the  apotliecary  shops  supplied  liquor  by  the  bottle 
as  frequently  as  desired. 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND.      37 

Since  enforcement  has  rested  with  the  county  sheriff  and 
his  deputies,  the  local  political  contests  between  the  sup- 
porters and  the  opponents  of  the  law  centre  on  the  election 
of  this  otficial.  The  prohibitionists  in  Cumberland  County 
are  too  hopelessly  in  the  minority  to  elect  a  sheriff  not 
affiliated  with  one  of  the  leading  parties.  In  fact,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  only  a  Republican  may  with  much 
confidence  aspire  to  the  shrievalty.  When,  therefore,  in 
1890,  violations  in  Portland  had  become  too  flagrant  for 
endurance  by  even  the  most  patient,  a  mighty  effort  was 
made  to  secure  a  Republican  candidate  for  sheriff  who 
could  bring  out  the  full  prohibitory  vote.  Such  a  man  was 
found,  and  every  energy  was  bent  to  secure  his  election. 
Leading  prohibitionists  made  a  "  schoolhouse  "  canvass  for 
him.  They  carried  the  day.  Immediately  the  new  sheriff 
began  war  upon  the  liquor-dealers.  The  period  of  the 
strictest  enforcement  known  perhaps  in  the  history  of  Port- 
land ensued.  Even  the  hotels,  for  a  while  at  least,  abstained 
from  selling.  The  ordinary  saloons  were  closed.  But  a  new 
vocation  sprang  up.  There  arose  "  pocket  peddlers,"  most 
of  whom  were  young  men  who  loiter  about  the  streets  and 
wharves  in  the  lower  quarters  of  the  city,  and  supply 
customers  from  the  bottle.  They  serve  a  drink  known 
as  "  split,"  a  concoction  consisting  of  the  cheapest  kind 
of  alcohol  —  sometimes  wood  alcohol  —  mixed  Avith  water, 
with  a  dash  of  rum  for  flavor,  and  some  coloring  matter, 
which  produces  a  violent  and  dangerous  form  of  intoxica- 
tion. In  1892  the  number  of  pocket  peddlers  was  esti- 
mated at  nearly  200.  It  was  not  possible  to  suppress  their 
business.  Furthermore,  the  apothecary  shops  continued 
selling,  though  less  openly  than  before.  But  the  worst 
"  leak  "  was  at  the  city  agency,  at  that  time  in  Democratic 
hands,  and  evidently  not  in  sympathy  with  the  law.  The 
sales  at  the  agency  took  a  sudden  upward  leap.  Mr.  E.  L. 
Fanshaw,  an  Englishman,  who  made  a  study  of  the  effects 


434452 


38  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND    ITS   RESULTS. 

of  prohibition  in  Portland  at  this  time,  speaks  of  the  agency 
in  these  words :  "  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  Portland  the 
question  '  Medicine  ? '  and  the  answer  '  Yes,'  seem  to  be 
held  sufficient,  and  a  small  throng  is  commonly  seen  in  the 
agency  of  persons  waiting  their  turn  for  a  flask  of  whiskey 
as  '  medicine.'  "  (''  Liquor  Legislation  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada,"  p.  107.) 

The  vigorous  measures  adopted  by  the  sheriff  did,  beyond 
doubt,  result  in  driving  some  dealers  out  of  the  business. 
A  number  were  put  in  jail ;  others  were  financially  crippled 
by  the  heavy  fines  imposed.  But  the  severe  regime  was 
evidently  not  appreciated  by  a  large  portion  of  the  popula- 
tion, for  the  sheriff  came  within  forty-four  votes  of  being 
defeated  for  a  second  term.  Yet  many  Democrats  ab- 
stained from  voting,  the  issue  being  enforcement  of  the 
prohibitory  law.  The  slierifF's  defeat  would  have  been  cer- 
tain but  for  the  support  received  in  the  rural  districts  of  the 
county. 

How  far  the  latest  efforts  to  suppress  the  liquor  traffic 
have  failed  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  1893  no 
less  than  161  persons  paid  United  States  special  liquor 
taxes  in  Portland. 

Later  the  officers  of  the  law  gradually  relaxed  their 
vigilance.  It  was  generally  supposed  that  political  exigen- 
cies were  at  the  bottom  of  this  change  of  affairs.  With  a 
county  election  pending,  the  dominant  party  was  fearful  of 
offending  too  openly  an  element  of  the  population  which 
under  certain  circumstances  might  find  it  profitable  to  turn 
upon  its  tormentors.  Motives  also  of  even  a  more  sordid 
character  kept  officers  from  stamping  out  the  liquor  traffic. 

The  exact  volume  of  the  liquor  trade  in  Portland  can- 
not be  determined.  A  fairly  correct  estimate,  however, 
may  be  gained  by  ascertaining  the  number  of  places  where 
liquor  is  sold  for  tippling  purposes.  Such  places  may 
be  designated   under  the   following   heads :    The  ordinary 


ENFOKCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW   IN   PORTLAND.  39 

"  protected  "  bars,  including  the  so-called  eating-houses  ; 
the  kitchen  bars ;  the  pocket  peddlers  ;  the  hotel  bars ;  the 
apothecary  shops  ;  the  bottling  establishments  and  jobbing 
houses ;  the  express  companies  ;  the  clubs ;  and  the  city 
liquor  agency. 

The  majority  of  the  ordinary  bars,  that  is,  places  where 
liquor  only  is  sold,  are  situated  on  Centre,  Commercial,  and 
Fore  streets,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Grand  Trunk  station. 
Within  a  stone's-throw  of  the  station  about  a  dozen 
saloons  are  clustered.  There  is  little  evidence  on  the  out- 
side of  these  places  to  betray  the  nature  of  the  business 
done  within.  But  generally  even  the  uninitiated  would 
discern  something  of  a  suspicious  nature  about  them,  even 
if  his  nostrils  did  not  detect  the  fumes  of  liquor.  One  or 
two  sentinels  patrol  the  immediate  vicinity  to  give  word  of 
any  impending  danger.  At  present  the  fear  is  not  so  much 
of  officers  of  the  law  as  of  private  "  spotters."  Usually 
an  anteroom,  containing  generally  a  show-case  of  cigars  and 
confectionery,  separates  the  bar  from  the  street,  but  occa- 
sionally one  need  only  push  open  a  screen  door  to  reach  it. 
Although  the  usual  drinking  paraphernalia  are  ranged  on 
a  shelf  behind  a  counter,  the  liquor  is  generally  kept  in 
cellars  or  in  the  back  yards,  where  intricate  devices  are 
resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  concealment.  This  is  often 
an  unnecessary  precaution,  and  in  some  cases  it  is  utterly 
disregarded,  since  "  protection  "  is  so  fully  enjoyed. 

In  the  score  or  so  of  saloons  of  this  class  visited  by  the 
writer,  from  six  to  twenty  persons  were  found  who  were 
there  to  drink,  most  of  them  young  men,  some  of  them 
boys  between  twelve  and  sixteen  years  of  age.  Occasion- 
ally small  girls  would  come  in  to  have  "growlers"  filled. 
Sometimes  older  girls  appeared,  to  drink  and  to  talk  with 
the  men.  The  customers  lounged  about,  smoking  and 
drinking,  with  an  apparent  sense  of  freedom  and  security. 
The  fact  that  many  of  the  proprietors  had  served  sentences 


40  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   llESULTS. 

in  jail  was  referred  to  as  a  matter  of  pride.  Several  who 
had  but  recently  returned  from  imprisonment  (one  the  day 
previous)  were  already  back  at  their  old  trade.  Their 
relations  with  the  oihcers  of  the  law  were  spoken  of  with 
the  utmost  freedom.  Drunkenness  in  its  various  stages 
was  visible,  especially  in  the  places  of  the  lowest  grade. 
Other  bars  were  conducted  by  men  who  both  by  dress  and 
speech  betrayed  more  refinement  and  intelligence  than  the 
ordinary  saloon-keeper,  and  their  customers  were,  in  some 
cases,  of  a  class  one  would  not  expect  to  find  in  such 
resorts.  In  addition  to  the  profits  from  the  sale  of  liquors, 
many  of  the  proprietors  obtain  considerable  revenue  from 
policy-dealing.  Policy  slips  were  seen  in  nearly  all  the 
saloons  inspected. 

The  question  arises,  How  is  it  possible  for  so  many  men 
to  conduct  a  traffic  on  public  streets  in  open  violation  of 
the  law  ?  The  answer  is  easy.  In  order  to  sell  liquor 
profitably,  it  is  necessary  for  the  dealer  to  obtain  supplies 
with  regularity,  and  to  sell  with  comparative  immunity. 
Both  these  conditions  are  met  in  Portland.  Nearly  all  the 
liquor  brought  into  the  city  comes  over  the  Boston  and 
Maine  Railroad,  and  is  liable  to  seizure  while  in  transit. 
It  is  thus  necessary  to  secure  the  services  of  a  person  con- 
nected with  that  road  who.  has  power  to  shift  and  turn  back 
cars  loaded  with  liquor,  whenever  it  is  necessary  to  do  so 
to  elude  the  vigilance  of  liquor  officers.  In  case  of  neces- 
sity a  whole  freight  train  must  be  sent  across  the  Ligonia 
railroad  bridge,  out  of  city  limits  and  out  of  the  reach  of 
officers,  —  at  least  compelling  them  to  make  a  circuit  of 
many  miles  to  reach  it.  On  almost  any  evening  a  person 
walking  along  Commercial  Street,  near  the  railroad  freight 
yards,  may  see  one  or  several  "  beer  teams "  delivering 
large  kegs  of  beer  and  ale,  sometimes  under  the  very  noses 
of  police  officers.  There  appears  to  be  little  or  no  attempt 
at  concealment.  Thus  at  the  very  outset  bribery  is  re- 
sorted to. 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  THE  LAW   IN   PORTLAND.  41 

Permission  to  run  a  saloon  is  a  question  of  belonging  to 
the  "  ring."  Nearly  all  dealers  can  obtain  this  privilege 
by  the  payment  of  from  $40  to  $60  per  month  •  "  hush- 
money,"  according  to  the  business  done.  Previous  to  open- 
ing shop,  a  ''  trade  "  must  be  made  with  the  officers.  The 
"  hush-money,"  concerning  the  amount  of  which  the  testi- 
mony of  a  dozen  dealers  who  were  questioned  agrees,  is 
paid,  they  say,  to  the  police  officers  and  sheriffs  deputies. 
The  presence  of  numerous  saloons  plying  a  brisk  trade 
almost  in  the  heart  of  the  city  cannot  be  explained  on  any 
other  ground  than  that  they  pay  for  the  immunity  enjoyed. 
The  suggestion  that  the  officers  grossly  neglect  their  duties 
and  violate  their  oath,  out  of  disinterested  sympathy  with 
the  dealers,  is  absurd.  No  more  can  it  be  believed  that 
they  are  blind  to  a  condition  of  things  patent  to  every 
observing  citizen.  It  is  notorious  that  there  is  a  keen 
competition  between  policemen  for  "  rum  beats."  Both 
from  the  men  immediately  concerned  and  their  friends  the 
writer  has  heard  complaints  of  unfairness  i-n  the  distribu- 
tion of  beats,  for  the  single  reason  that  some  Avere  pre- 
vented from  enjoying  the  spoils  of  a  "  rum  beat." 

Only  by  systematized  bribery  and  corruption  are  the  bar- 
keepers of  Portland  so  successful  in  evading  the  law.  But 
it  must  be  added  that  the  dealers  are  required  to  observe 
certain  rules  ;  as,  for  example,  that  they  close  their  shops 
at  ten  o'clock  in  the  evening,  that  they  abstain  from  selling 
on  Sundays,  and  that  they  prevent  disturbances  on  their 
premises.  But  if,  for  certain  reasons,  police  visits  are  paid 
them,  they  usually  receive  a  timely  warning,  so  that  when 
the  officials  arrive  the  premises  are  found  temporarily 
vacated ;  two  or  three  bottles  of  beer  which,  perhaps,  have 
been  left  handy,  are  seized,  and  return  is  made  on  the  war- 
rant, "  Owner  unknown." 

The  number  of  "  kitchen  bars  "  varies  considerably  from 
time  to  time,  being  at  the  time  of  the  writer's  investigation 


42  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

about  eighty.  They  are  found  in  the  alleys,  tenements, 
and  tumble-down  houses  in  the  poorer  sections  of  the  city. 
They  are  not  extensively  "  protected,"  and  the  owners  must 
therefore  resort  to  various  devices  to  cover  up  their  tracks. 
This  is  effectually  done  by  an  elaborate  system  of  piping, 
or  by  traps  of  different  kinds ;  the  dark  alleyways,  crooked 
passageways,  and  general  character  of  the  houses  aiding 
concealment.  In  these  bars  little  but  distilled  liquor  is 
sold,  chiefly  on  Saturday  evenings  and  Sundays.  They  are 
well  patronized,  especially  by  older  men,  who  prefer  the 
comparative  quiet  and  seclusion  which  they  afford.  Liquor 
raids  are  mostly  directed  against  kitchen  bars  not  in  the 
"  ring,"  though  these  are  often  simply  pro  forma.  The 
drinking  at  these  bars  is  especially  productive  of  intoxica- 
tion, both  because  of  the  quality  of  the  liquor  sold  and  of 
the  opportunity  of  uninterrupted  indulgence.  A  kitchen 
bar  is  not  easily  found  by  a  stranger,  since  only  a  few  of 
them  have  outside  sentinels ;  but  it  is  well  known  that 
they  infest  whole  blocks  in  different  parts  of  the  city. 

The  pocket  peddlers  multiply  with  amazing  rapidity  dur- 
ing a  period  of  strict  enforcement,  and  most  of  them  disap- 
pear as  suddenly  in  "wet  times."  At  the  time  of  the 
present  investigation,  not  a  few  were  found  on  the  wharves 
and  along  the  water  front  after  dark,  especially  on  Sundays. 
They  supply  "  split,"  at  the  rate  of  thirty  cents  a  pint  for 
the  cheapest  grade.  Boys  of  fifteen  and  upwards  were 
found  as  venders  of  "  split."  The  pocket  peddler  secures 
many  victims  on  incoming  fishing  -  vessels  and  coasting 
schooners,  which  he  boards  at  the  first  opportunity. 

At  least  five  of  the  principal  hotels  sell  liquor  at  bars,  or 
it  may  be  ordered  in  the  rooms  or  at  table.  The  hotel 
bars  are  not  of  higher  order  than  the  common  saloons,  and 
cater  perhaps  more  to  outsiders  than  to  real  guests.  Since 
it  is  supposed  that  hotel-keepers  are  best  able  to  pay,  they 
are  mulcted  as  high  as  $100  per  month.     The  kind  of  im- 


ENFORCEMENT    OF   THE   LAW    IN    PORTLAND.  43 

munity  enjoyed  by  them  is  well  illustrated  by  the  follow- 
ing incident  which  came  under  the  observation  of  the 
writer.  At  one  of  the  principal  hotels  this  message  came 
over  the  telephone  at  two  o'clock  one  Saturday  afternoon : 
"They  are  coming  at  three  o'clock."  "They"  were  offi- 
cials from  the  sheriff's  office,  who  thus  gave  a  timely  warn- 
ing of  their  intention  to  pay  an  official  visit.  Naturally, 
the  necessary  preparation  was  made  for  their  reception,  and 
the  search  resulted  in  nothing.  But  in  the  evening,  for 
some  reason,  presumably  on  the  complaint  of  some  out- 
sider, two  police  officers  paid  a  call  at  the  bar,  which  had 
reopened  so  soon  as  the  sheriff's  officers  had  left.  The 
throng  about  it  —  standing  four  deep  —  was  particularly 
noisy.  After  having  watched  the  proceedings  for  a  few 
moments,  the  officers  showed  their  badges,  closed  the  bar, 
and  arrested  one  of  the  attendants.  Although  there  was 
a  plenty  of  direct  evidence  at  hand,  the  case  was  settled 
in  the  municipal  court  the  following  Monday  without  the 
formality  of  a  trial,  the  proprietor  simply  paying  a  fine  of 
$100  and  costs.  At  five  o'clock  that  same  Monday  morn- 
ing the  hotel  bar  was  open  for  business  again.  Although 
the  newspapers  refrained  from  making  any  reference  to  the 
incident,  this  raid  created  quite  a  sensation,  not  because  the 
violation  of  the  law  was  in  the  nature  of  a  surprise,  but  be- 
cause it  was  thought  that  the  hotels  enjoyed  perfect  protec- 
tion. They  are  usually  the  last  places  to  be  raided,  although 
they  are  among  the  most  active  distributers  of  drink. 

At  certain  oyster  houses  on  the  principal  street  of  the 
city,  beer  is  sold  in  large  quantities.  These  houses  enjoy  a 
somewhat  exclusive  patronage. 

The  drug  -  stores  have  ever  been  a  fruitful  source  of 
drunkenness  in  Portland.  There  are  no  less  than  forty-five 
of  these  shops  in  the  city,  or  one  to  about  eight  hundred  in- 
habitants. This  fact  alone  would  suffice  to  show  that  all  of 
them  could  not  possibly  subsist  were  their  trade  exclusively 


44  PROHIBITION   IN    MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

in  apothecary's  wares.  Indeed,  from  their  very  situation  it 
is  evident  that  they  do  not  exist  for  the  purpose  of  supply- 
ing drugs.  Thus  at  the  upper  end  of  Congress  Street,  away 
from  the  most  populous  part  of  the  city,  three  drug-stores 
are  in  close  proximity  to  one  another.  On  Middle  Street, 
in  a  neighborhood  equally  unpropitious  for  the  druggist's 
trade,  they  are  remarkably  numerous.  Within  a  radius  of 
a  quarter  of  a  mile  or  a  trifle  more  from  Monument  Square, 
which  may  be  designated  as  the  heart  of  the  city,  one  finds 
about  thirty  drug-stores.  Others  again  are  found  in  the 
most  impossible  places  for  legitimate  business.  To  place 
all  the  drug-stores  in  Portland  in  the  same  category  would, 
of  course,  be  most  unfair.  Yet  the  fact  remains  that  all 
but  two,  or  at  most  three,  when  this  investigation  was 
made,  had  paid  the  United  States  special  tax,  which  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  violation  of  the  liquor  laws.  But 
this  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  all  having  paid  United 
States  special  taxes  sell  liquor  for  tippling  purposes.  So 
far  as  the  wholesale  druggists  are  concerned,  the  writer  has 
it  on  the  authority  of  one  engaged  in  the  business  that  a 
wholesale  druggist  who  should  refuse  to  fill  orders  for 
liquor  from  village  druggists  and  physicians  would  be  un- 
able to  retain  his  trade.  Of  the  druggists  doing  a  retail 
business  only,  some  doubtless  sell  liquor  only  for  medicinal 
purposes,  but  this  also  is  a  violation  of  the  law.  It  is  a 
conservative  statement  to  say  that  about  twenty  drug-stores 
in  Portland  exist  simply  for  the  purpose  of  selling  liquor. 

It  is  commonly  said  that  a  number  of  druggists  pay  for 
protection,  but  to  what  extent  this  practice  obtains  is  not 
known.  The  fact  that  some  druggists  are  only  liquor-sell- 
ers in  disguise  is  a  matter  that  has  frequently  been  proved 
in  the  courts.  Lastly,  it  should  be  remarked  that  liquor  is 
sold  at  the  apothecary  shops  on  Sundays. 

From  the  books  of  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  it  is 
found  that  five  United  States  wholesale  licenses  were  taken 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW   IN    PORTLAND.  45 

out  by  residents  of  Portland  in  1893,  four  for  the  sale  of 
malt  liquors  and  one  for  distilled  liquors.  There  is  good 
reason  for  the  belief  that  others  have  embarked  in  the  busi- 
ness since  that  date,  for  it  must  be  remembered  that  1893 
is  reckoned  as  a  "  dry  "  year.  The  wholesale  dealers  sup- 
ply much  of  the  family  trade  in  Portland,  and  do  a  jobbing 
business  in  the  small  towns  as  well  as  sell  to  retailers  in 
the  city.  At  least  one  of  them  serves  liquor  (chiefly  beer) 
by  the  glass.  Certain  bottling  establishments,  where  large 
quantities  of  mineral  waters  are  put  up,  derive  perhaps  an 
equally  large  revenue  from  the  sale  of  liquor.  The  process 
of  bottling  the  liquor  (beer  and  ale)  is  in  some  instances 
carried  on  without  any  semblance  of  secrecy,  and  may  be 
viewed  from  the  sidewalks.  The  liberal  display  of  brew- 
ers' advertisements  is  also  sufficiently  indicative  of  the 
business  done.  The  delivery  of  beer  to  private  houses  is 
effected  Avith  impunity,  although  a  certain  amount  of  cir- 
cumspection is  deemed  prudent. 

Persons  who  wish  to  obtain  liquor  less  openly  may  re- 
sort to  a  number  of  express  companies  wjiicli  are  ready  to 
place  orders  for  their  customers  with  wholesale  dealers  in 
Boston  and  other  cities.  While  this  method  is  as  unlawful 
as  any,  the  difficulty  of  detection  is  obvious.  The  transac- 
tion between  the  taker  of  the  order  and  the  giver  can  easily 
be  kept  secret ;  when  the  liquor  arrives,  the  express  officials 
may  declare  ignorance  of  the  contents  of  the  packages,  which 
are  addressed  to  the  individual  consumer.  The  carrying  of 
liquor  packages  ordered  directly  by  the  consumer  himself  is 
recognized  as  legitimate.  This  is  usually  done  by  the  large 
express  companies.  Only  the  local  expresses  go  into  the 
order-business  proper.  But  the  latter  do  not  always  con- 
fine themselves  to  order-taking.  Prom  evidence  produced 
in  the  courts,  it  is  plain  that  they  operate,  in  a  quiet  wa}', 
as  jobbers,  large  quantities  of  liquor  having  been  seized  at 
their  storage  rooms.     Conviction  in  such  cases  is  not  easily 


46  PKOHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND    ITS   RESULTS. 

obtained,  for  the  packages  may  be  labeled  with  fictitious 
names,  and  the  defendant  may  swear  that  he  is  not  aware 
that  the  liquor  is  intended  for  sale,  or  that  he  does  not 
know  the  persons  who  will  eventually  call  for  it.  It  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  that  not  even  an  approximate  esti- 
mate of  the  liquor  brought  into  the  city  by  expresses  can  be 
made.  By  well-informed  persons  the  quantity  is  consid- 
ered great  and  growing. 

Drinking  clubs,  while  by  no  means  so  numerous  as  they 
were  ten  years  ago,  still  flourish.  At  other  clubs,  which 
exist  for  legitimate  purposes,  members  have  private  lockers 
in  which  liquor  is  kept.  This  is  of  course  not  a  violation 
of  the  law. 

On  the  occasion  of  the  writer's  first  visit  to  the  Portland 
Liquor  Agency,  he  was  greeted  with  these  words  by  one  of 
the  attendants  :  "  This  is  nothing  but  a  legalized  rumshop, 
—  that's  all."  The  statistics  abundantly  vindicate  this 
assertion.  It  was  explained  that  certain  formalities  are 
observed.  Thus  the  name  and  address  of  each  purchaser  are 
recorded.  "  Of  qpurse,"  the  informant  went  on,  "  there 
are  some  we  don't  sell  to  and  won't  sell  to  (for  instance,  in- 
toxicated persons  and  habitual  drunkards),  but  if  a  respec- 
table person  comes  in  we  don't  ask  questions."  An  in- 
stance was  given  of  a  well-known  citizen  who  had  just  laid 
in  supplies  for  a  month,  —  not  for  medicinal  purposes,  as  he 
expressly  stated.  The  volume  of  trade  at  the  agency  de- 
pends upon  the  extent  to  which  the  law  is  enforced,  and 
thus  may  be  regarded  as  a  barometer  indicating  "wet"  and 
"  dry  "  times  in  the  city.  On  this  point  one  of  the  attend- 
ants remarked,  "Trade  is  not  very  lively  now  that  the  bars 
run  openly."  The  agency  is  open  from  9  A.  m.  to  1  p.  m. 
and  again  from  1.30  to  G  p.  m.  on  weekdays.  A  full 
line  of  goods  is  carried,  from  alcohol  to  champagne.  It 
is  a  common  complaint  that  tlie  goods  are  not  of  a  first-rate 
quality  and  are  expensive.     Yet,  until  lately,  the  profits 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW  IN   PORTLAND.         47 

to  the  city  from  the  sales  were  exceedingly  small,  if  any. 
Recently,  while  the  agency  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Demo- 
crats, the  net  profits  to  the  city  reached  $20,000.  The 
principal  liquors  ordered  from  the  state  commissioner  are 
whiskey  and  rum.  Neither  article  is  used  for  mechanical 
purposes,  and  the  latter  is  certainly  not  generally  ordered 
as  medicine,  or  used  in  compounding  prescriptions.  The 
ease  with  which  liquor  may  be  obtained  at  the  agency  oper- 
ates in  the  nature  of  a  temptation  for  those  who  want  liquor 
and  yet  would  not  patronize  the  law-breaking  venders.  The 
transactions  of  the  agency  vary  greatly,  —  from  $6,500  in 
1876-77  to  $18,000  the  next  year;  from  $12,000  in  1879- 
80  to  $26,850  the  year  after ;  from  $20,000  in  1884-85 
to  $28,000  in  1885-86.  In  1891-92  the  receipts  were 
$57,000,  and  in  1892-93  they  were  $76,000. 

The  high  figure  reached  by  the  sales  in  1885  and  in  1891 
to  1894  shows  how  they  are  augmented  in  a  period  of  en- 
forcement. Evidently,  then,  the  agency  has  degenerated 
into  an  officially  protected  bottle-shop  and  a  source  of  intem- 
perance. 

For  the  sake  of  greater  clearness,  the  number  of  places  in 
Portland  where  liquor  is  at  present  sold  for  tippling  pur- 
poses is  given  in  a  summarized  form  :  — 

Ordinary  bars,  including  eating-houses  and  bottling 

establishments    ........  54 

Hotel  bars 5 

Kitchen  bars 80 

Apothecary  shops 42 

Liquor  Agency       1 

Total 182 

In  this  list  no  account  has  been  taken  of  pocket  peddlers, 
houses  of  ill-fame,  express  companies,  clubs,  and  certain 
oyster  restaurants.  Hence  the  statement  is  extremely  con- 
servative. It  is  well  known  that  only  a  few  of  the  kitchen 
barkeepers  pay  the  United  States  special  tax.      Bearing  in 


48  PEOHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

mind  that  161  United  States  special  liquor  taxes  were  paid 
by  so  many  residents  of  Portland  in  1893,  —  a  year  in  which 
the  law  was  enforced  to  some  extent, —  and  allowing  that  of 
the  kitchen  bars  one  half,  or  40,  pay  the  special  taxes,  which 
would  be  an  unusually  large  proportion,  we  still  have  19  of 
these  bars  left  to  account  for.  While  the  present  investi- 
gation was  in  progress,  several  new  bars  were  opened.  It 
therefore  remains  a  low  estimate  to  say  that,  reckoning  the 
population  of  Portland  at  about  40,000  and  the  number 
of  drinking  places  at  182,  there  is  one  such  place  to  219 
inhabitants.  No  higher  authority  can  be  found  than  the 
high  sheriff  of  Cumberland  County,  upon  whom  the  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  depends.  This  official,  in  1894,  put 
the  following  question  :  "  If  a  landlord  cannot  restrain  one 
tenant,  how  can  four  deputies  deal  with  400  rumsellers  in 
this  city  ?  " 

Nearly  all  the  persons  who  may  properly  be  designated 
as  barkeepers  belong  to  the  Irish  or  Irish- American  popula- 
tion. Occasionally  men  of  other  nationalities  (Russian 
Hebrews  or  Germans)  are  found  as  owners  of  saloons.  The 
liquor-sellers  of  native  stock  are  found  chiefly  among  the 
druggists,  although  not  a  few  of  the  drug-store  keepers  are 
of  foreign  descent.  The  brunt  of  the  battle  against  the 
liquor  law  is  borne  by  those  engaged  in  no  other  business 
than  that  of  selling  liquor.  They  are  adepts  at  their  work, 
and  shun  no  means,  fair  or  foul,  of  gaining  their  ends.  A 
whole  generation  has  grown  up  trained  from  early  infancy 
in  the  belief  that  the  law  is  their  natural  enemy,  and  that 
their  special  province  is  to  connect  themselves  directly  or 
indirectly  with  an  occupation  which  exists  in  defiance  of 
the  very  Constitution  of  the  State.  It  is  a  part  of  common 
speech  in  Portland  to  designate  certain  wards  of  the  city  as 
the  "  liquor  wards."  It  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the 
liquor  traffic  in  prohibition  cities  that  an  unusual  number 
of  persons  is  required  to  conduct  it.      In   the   first  place, 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW   IN    PORTLAND.  49 

there  is  the  proprietor,  and  prohal)ly  the  members  of  his 
family.  But  in  case  he  is  an  old  offender,  and  has  reason 
to  dread  interference,  he  ceases,  at  least  at  times,  to  be  the 
active  proprietor.  One  or  two  men  are  engaged  to  tend 
bar,  with  the  understanding  that  they  are  to  act  as  own- 
ers if  brought  into  court,  and  take  the  punishment  (if  im- 
prisonment) that  the  law  deals  out.  Two  individuals  are 
needed  as  sentinels  to  give  alarm  in  case  of  an  approaching 
raid. 

By  no  means  are  all  the  persons  classed  as  liquor-dealers 
proper  on  the  lowest  round  of  the  social  ladder.  Some, 
especially  of  the  second  generation,  have  even  attained  po- 
litical preferment  and  been  members  of  the  city  government. 
But,  however  "high  "  their  social  standing  may  be,  they  are 
hand  in  glove  with  their  brethren  below  them  ;  they  live  by 
the  same  means,  and  profit  by  the  same  tactics.  While  there 
are  understood  to  be  two  ''  gangs  "  of  liquor-dealers,  no 
enmity  exists  between  the  protected  and  unprotected  sellers. 
The  former  fear  to  ''  crowd "  the  latter,  lest  public  com- 
plaints should  follow.  Furthermore,  the  kitchen  barkeeper 
often  serves  as  a  scapegoat  who  takes  the  punishment  of  the 
law  when  raids  are  in  order.  His  risk  is  the  greater.  The 
liquor-sellers  belong  by  inheritance  to  the  Democratic  party, 
and  formerly  remained  loyal  to  it.  But  in  the  course  of 
time  it  was  discovered  to  be  not  always  advantageous  for  the 
habitual  violator  of  the  law  to  remain  a  strict  partisan.  They 
have  learned  to  change  their  party  clothes  as  often  as  policy 
dictates.  Of  only  one  liquor-dealer  has  it  been  said  that  he 
refused  both  to  buy  immunity  and  to  change  his  political 
creed.  He  fought  the  law  openly,  and  Avas  crushed,  after 
twenty-five  years,  by  the  men  he  had  helped  into  office. 
When  the  city  is  Democratic,  the  dealers  are  Democrats  so 
far  as  expedient,  and  vice  versa.  Their  political  action  de- 
pends, perhaps,  more  on  county  than  on  city  politics,  so  long 
as  sheriffs  are  elected  on   the  liquor  issue.     Neither  party 


50  PKOHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

can  safely  ignore  the  liquor  vote,  and  consequently  both 
"  play  "  to  it  more  or  less  openly.  Since  1872  the  pro- 
hibitionists have  placed  their  main  reliance  on  the  county 
sheriff  and  his  deputies.  While  it  was  not  intended  to  re- 
lieve the  police  department  of  its  obvious  duties,  the  enact- 
ment of  the  sheriff  law  has  practically  had  this  result,  oc- 
casioning no  little  confusion.  Statistics  indicate  that  the 
activity  of  the  police  ceased  largely,  so  far  as  the  execution 
of  the  liquor  laws  was  concerned,  during  the  seventies,  to  be 
revived  again  later  in  an  intermittent  way,  but  never  with 
the  hoped-for  results.  A  comparison  between  the  work 
done  by  the  police  and  the  total  number  of  cases  of  search 
and  seizure,  during  the  latest  time  of  enforcement,  gives 
further  evidence  on  this  point. 

In  his  report  for  1889-90,  the  city  marshal,  speaking  of 
the  prohibitory  legislation,  called  it  "  this  rock  upon  which 
so  many  city  marshals  have  been  wrecked  and  literally 
ground  to  powder  in  years  gone  by."  The  neglect  of  the 
police  to  enforce  the  law  may  in  part  be  accounted  for  on 
political  grounds  ;  thus  it  is  known  that  a  Eepublican  po- 
lice force  has  thwarted  the  efforts  of  a  Democratic  mayor 
to  put  down  the  liquor-sellers.  But  at  the  present  time 
there  are  three  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  police,  —  the 
commonly  accepted  theory  that  it  is  not  their  province  to 
enforce  these  laAvs,  except  when  specially  called  upon  to  do 
so  ;  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  laws,  which  is  quite  openly 
expressed  ;  the  influence  of  the  money  of  the  liquor-sellers. 
The  last  perhaps  sufficiently  explains  the  friendly  feeling 
and  the  spirit  of  camaraderie  prevailing  between  the  guar- 
dians of  the  law  and  the  offenders  against  the  law,  which 
the  writer  had  frequent  opportunity  to  observe. 

The  law  compels  magistrates  to  issue  a  warrant  against 
persons  suspected  of  violating  the  liquor  laws  on  the  com- 
plaint of  any  one  competent  to  be  sworn  in  a  civil  suit.  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  voluntary   complaints  pro- 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND.    51 

• 

ceeding  from  citizens  are  at  all  frequent.  The  contrary  is 
apparently  the  fact,  and  this  indicates  the  general  apathy  of 
the  public.  The  warrants  to  search  for  liquor,  and  seize  it 
if  found,  are  generally  sworn  out  at  the  will  of  the  police 
and  deputy  sheriffs,  and  therefore  need  not  be  directed 
against  their  friends.  The  fact  that  the  magistrates  are 
deprived  of  all  discretion  in  issuing  warrants  has  given  rise 
to  a  flood  of  what  are  technically  known  as  "  dummy  war- 
rants," that  is,  warrants  taken  out  and  returned  with  the 
seizure  of  half  a  pint  or  so  of  liquor  of  some  kind,  or  taken 
out  and  returned  without  any  seizure  having  been  made. 
To  save  trouble,  an  officer  may  thus  swear  out  half  a  dozen 
■warrants  at  once,  put  them  in  his  coat  pocket,  and  serve 
them  only  when  he  feels  like  it.  Yet  the  law  prescribes 
that  immediate  returns  shall  be  made  on  such  warrants. 

From  1874  to  1881  the  police  did  very  little  to  prevent 
liquor-selling,  enforcement  of  the  law,  such  as  it  was,  ema- 
nating from  the  sheriff's  office.  In  1881,  however,  they 
began  to  shoAV  a  greater  activity,  which  apparently  culmi- 
nated in  1886.  From  that  time  on,  the  number  of  arrests 
decreased  perceptibly.  Yet  the  statistics  of  searches  and 
seizures  would  indicate  that  they  bestirred  themselves  in 
later  years,  notably  in  1887  and  1891. 

The  remarks  about  "  dummy  warrants  "  are  abundantly 
substantiated  by  statistics  drawn  from  the  annual  reports  of 
the  city  marshals.  The  swearing  out  of  7,793  warrants  in 
one  year  (1886)  was  of  itself  absurd,  and  resulted  in  only 
a  few  more  actual  seizures,  and  not  as  many  arrests,  as 
resulted  from  one  third  the  number  of  warrants  in  the  year 
following.  It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance  that,  while  in 
1891  liquor  was  found  and  seized  on  425  warrants,  only 
2,939  gallons  were  taken,  and  that,  in  1888,  7,564  gallons 
were  seized  on  353  warrants.  However,  this  may  be 
accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  the  police  frequently 
seize  only  a  sufficient  quantity  of  liquor  ''  to  make  a  show," 


52  PROHIBITION    IN    MAINE   AND    ITS   RESULTS. 

and  leave  the  rest,  presumably  in  order  that  the  dealer 
may  be  able  to  continue  his  business.  The  statistics  afford 
conclusive  evidence  on  two  points,  —  the  lack  of  honest 
enforcement  on  the  part  of  the  police,  and  the  extent  of 
liquor-selling  in  the  city.  The  number  of  "  dummy  "  war- 
rants taken  out,  while  always  considerable,  reached  as- 
tounding proportions  in  1885,  when  in  six  months  4,172 
were  issued.  They  were  taken  out  at  the  rate  of  534  per 
day,  and  one  official  in  that  year  personally  made  oath  to 
4,535.  Nothing  can  illustrate  more  forcibly  the  vicious- 
ness  of  a  system  which  deprives  magistrates  of  all  discre- 
tion in  making  out  warrants.  The  cost  to  the  county  of 
each  seizure  ranged  from  $5.65  in  1883  to  $18.38  in  1881, 
and  the  cost  of  each  case  brought  before  court  from  $17  to 
$182.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  these  differences  can 
be  accounted  for  satisfactorily.  During  six  months  in 
1885,  $5,243.44  were  paid  for  warrants  upon  which  no 
seizures  were  made.  The  total  cost  of  liquor  warrants  for 
the  same  time,  including  the  per  diem  pay  of  deputies  and 
printing,  reached  $9,571.97,  or  about  $62  for  each  case 
brought  before  court. 

The  cost  to  the  county  of  Cumberland,  in  which  Portland 
is  situated,  for  the  attempted  suppression  of  the  liquor 
traffic,  not  including  officers'  fees,  but  only  the  per  diem  of 
deputies,  was,  in  1886,  $2,205.74  ;  in  1887,  $2,280.50 ; 
in  1888,  $2,336.65;  in  1889,  $2,651.17;  in  1890, 
$2,254.67  ;  in  1891,  $5,621.54  ;  in  1892,  $6,242.66 ;  in 
1893,  $5,093.61. 

No  published  returns  exist  of  the  work  done  by  the 
deputy  sheriffs  towards  suppressing  sales,  except  such  as 
may  be  extracted  laboriously  from  the  court  records.  Their 
methods  are  naturally  the  same  as  those  pursued  by  the 
police.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  have  been 
more  faithful  than  the  police  to  their  duties.  The  widest 
publicity  has  been  repeatedly  given  to  this  grave  charge, 


ENFORCExMENT   Of   THE    LAW   IN    PORTLAND.  53 

and    that    by   persons    from   whom  it  would  least  be  ex- 
pected. ^ 

1  The  following  quotation  is  from  an  article  published  in  the  Portland 
Express,  Juue  21,  1894.  The  Express  is  a  Republican  organ,  and,  the 
county  and  city  oflScials  being  of  the  same  political  party,  the  charges 
are  brought  against  its  own  party  associates.  That  the  disclosure  was 
made  with  some  political  object  in  view  does  not  concern  us  at  present. 
"It  is  generally  believed  that  permission  to  carry  on  liquor-selling  is 
secured  b}'  a  regular  system  of  payments  to  those  who  have  it  in  their 
power  to  practically  annihilate  the  tratiic  if  thej'  are  so  disposed.  The 
nature  and  extent  of  the  'protection'  said  to  be  arranged  and  paid  for 
differs  in  different  cases.  Sometimes  it  is  understood  that  regular  pay- 
ments must  also  be  made  'to  the  court; '  sometimes  that  they  shall  not  be 
troubled  save  when  '  outside  complaint '  is  made,  of  which  ample  notice 
must  be  given,  so  that  the  resulting  search  may  do  no  harm;  sometimes 
that  'fines'  will  be  exacted  onh'  when  'the  court  is  short,'  to  use  the 
technical  parlance  in  such  cases;  sometimes  that,  when  a  public  or  political 
exigency  requires  a  seizure,  onl}' enough  shall  be  taken  to  'make  out  a 
case,'  the  balance  of  the  stock  being  left  undisturbed,  and  the  owner 
politely  advised  to  'step  round  to  the  court  to-morrow  and  pay  ^100.' 
Sometimes  this  protection,  it  is  said,  is  afforded  for  a  certain  time  of  busi- 
ness, beyond  wbieh  the  protected  individual  is  not  permitted  to  go,  as  that 
would  interfere  by  way  of  competition  with  some  other  person,  who  is 
also  said  to  be  paying  for  'protection,'  and  demands  it  from  competition 
as  well  as  from  the  penalties  of  the  law. 

"The  regular  exaction  for  'protection'  is  said  to  range  from  $5200  a 
month  down,  according  to  the  nature,  locality,  and  extent  of  the  business 
carried  on.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  victims  of  this  system  are  expected  to 
assist  the  candidates  of  their  extortioners  and  blackmailers  politically,  in 
caucuses  and  otherwise,  and  thus  aid  in  perpetiuiting  the  power  which 
oppresses  them.  They  make  these  regular  payments,  respond  to  many 
irregular  demands  for  money  besides,  and  render  other  incidental  service, 
because  they  do  not  dare  to  do  otherwise. 

"  Some  liquor-dealers  complain  that  their  profits  are  cut  down  by  the 
competition  of  shops  allowed  to  exist  in  the  vicinity  of  their  own  places 
of  business,  that  the  regular  collection  of  protection  money  may  also  be 
made  from  them. 

"  These  demands  are  in  some  instances  also  said  to  be  so  excessive  that 
the  dealers  say  they  swallow  up  the  lion's  share  of  the  profits,  and  some- 
times actually  force  them  to  run  more  disreputable  places  than  they  other- 
wise would,  in  order  to  get  in  money  enough  to  be  able  to  respond  to  the 
perpetual  si|Ucozing. 

"The  iilacknuiilcrs  .  .  .  calculate  to  leave  the  liquor-sellers  profit  enough 
to  induce  them  to  continue  the  business,  and  to  keep  quiet  as  to  these  ex- 
tortions. But  these  latter  are  given  to  understand  that  failure  to  respond 
to  denuuids  for  money  or  for  assistance  in  caucuses  and  otherwise,  or  anv 
'squealing' about  this  blackmailing,  will  be  followed  l)y  such  vigorous 
prosecution  as  to  drive  them  from  business.     They  are  also  wickedly  made 


54  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   A'ND    ITS   RESULTS. 

Yet  a  large  number  of  persons  are  annually  brought 
before  the  courts,  and  many  of  them  are  sentenced.  Jurors, 
when  drawn  from  the  rural  districts,  are  perhaps  more  in- 
clined to  convict  than  those  from  the  city.  The  unblush- 
ing manner  in  which  defendants  and  their  witnesses  resort 
to  perjury  helps  to  perplex  matters.  It  is  freely  alleged 
that  a  number  of  "  professional  "  witnesses  exist  in  Port- 
land who  are  ready  "  to  swear  to  anything  for  the  sake  of 
the  fee  of  $1.62."  More  cases  were  tried  from  1891  to 
1894  than  from  1887  to  1890,  but  this  fact  does  not  prove 
that  less  liquor  was  sold  during  the  latter  period,  any  more 
than  it  proves  that  the  traffic  was  exterminated  in  the 
former.  The  difference  lies  in  this,  that  in  1891  a  period 
of  enforcement  began.  Kor  must  the  inference  be  drawn 
that  the  number  of  persons  tried  represents  so  many  in- 
dividuals. The  same  individual  may  be  tried  on  several 
counts,  and  appear  in  court  year  after  year.  "  It  is  one  of 
the  most  discouraging  features  of  the  liquor  question  in 
Portland,"  an  ex-county  attorney  has  remarked,  "  that  the 
same  faces  are  seen  before  the  courts  from  year  to  year." 
It  is  a  safe  conclusion,  however,  that  the  courts  would  not 
be  kept  so  busy  unless  the  traffic  were  extensive.  Taking 
the  year  1893,  for    instance,   we  find  that  there  was  one 

to  believe  in  many  instances  by  these  alleged  extortioners  that  officers  who 
have  no  interest  in  this  '  protection  money '  are  knowing  to  and  authoriz- 
ing this  bleeding  process. 

"Within  certain  circles,  the  names  of  the  men  who  are  said  to  demand 
the  amounts  it  is  alleged  they  regularly  receive  by  levy  of  blackmail  and 
bribes,  the  days  on  which  it  is  said  that  they  make  the  collection,  the 
person  from  whom  it  is  claimed  they  collect,  are  as  freely  mentioned  as 
any  fact  of  common  notoriety." 

That  the  foregoing  disclosures  led  within  a  few  weeks  to  the  discharge 
of  certain  officials  proves  that  they  are  not  empty  accusations  manufac- 
tured for  a  purpose.  However,  to  throw  the  whole  blame  on  the  officials 
is  scarcely  just;  for  it  is  evident  that  they  have  not  only  lacked  the  sym- 
pathetic support  of  the  public,  but  there  seems  reason  to  believe  that  the 
assistance  promised  them  from  the  Prohibitionists  was  not  forthcoming. 
That  tlie  tinancial  aid  of  the  latter  should  be  counted  on  is  a  peculiar 
phase  of  the  situation,  in  view  of  the  large  sums  annually  spent  by  the 
county  for  the  suppression  of  tlie  liquor  traffic. 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND.     55 

seizure    made    to    about    twenty-two   inhabitants,   notwith- 
standing that  the  law  was  said  to  be  enforced. 

Of  275  cases  tried  in  1891  on  search  and  seizure  com- 
plaints, 179  resulted  in  convictions,  or  65  per  cent.  ;  33 
per  cent.  Avere  discharged ;  and  1.45  per  cent,  continued. 
Of  those  convicted,  76  per  cent,  appealed ;  5  per  cent, 
were  committed  on  an  appeal ;  5  were  committed ;  8  per 
cent,  paid  fines  and  costs ;  and  5  per  cent,  had  the  sentences 
suspended.  Of  the  1,550  seizures  that  year,  17  per  cent, 
resulted  in  trials. 

In  1893,  9  per  cent,  of  the  seizures  (1,789)  resulted  in 
trials.  Of  the  156  tried,  99,  or  63  per  cent.,  were  convicted, 
and  57,  or  36  per  cent.,  discharged.  Of  those  convicted,  75 
per  cent,  appealed  ;  10  per  cent,  were  committed  on  an  ap- 
peal ;  4  per  cent,  were  committed  ;  2  per  cent,  paid  the 
fines ;   and  8  per  cent,  had  the  sentence  suspended. 

In  1894  the  number  of  seizures  was  surprisingly  large, 
and  the  proportion  of  convictions  surprisingly  small.  There 
is  no  evidence  to  the  effect  that  sentences  are  unduly  sus- 
pended or  discharges  improperly  made.  A  surprising  num- 
ber of  the  latter  are  noted,  however,  among  the  nuisance 
cases  in  1887.  The  large  percentage  of  appeals  attracts 
attention. 

Whatever  may  have  been  accomplished  by  way  of  prose- 
cution of  sellers  of  liquor,  which  is  not  a  great  deal,  their 
source  of  supplies  has  never  been  effectually  stopped.  The 
cases  of  illegal  transportation  have  diminished  in  number 
rapidly  since  1887.  In  1892  only  two  such  cases  were  tried. 
When  the  law  in  1891  imposed  a  penalty  of  $500  and  one 
year's  imprisonment,  prosecution  for  this  offense  virtually 
ceased.  In  a  single  case  only  has  the  full  penalty  been 
imposed.  Neither  judges  nor  juries  deemed  the  sentence 
required  on  a  conviction  to  be  just.  Why  the  number  of 
transportation  cases  has  not  multiplied  since  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1893,  reducing  the  penalty  to  $200  without  impris- 


56  PEOHIBITION    IN    MAINE   AND    ITS    RESULTS. 

onraent,  has  not  been  explained,  and  can  only  be  inferred  in  a 
general  way.  Yet  it  is  easily  demonstrable  that,  so  long  as 
supplies  from  outside  the  State  are  available,  liquor-selling 
is  a  tempting  business  and  will  flourish.  It  appears  that 
even  in  times  of  enforcement  the  efi'orts  to  cut  off  the  sup- 
plies are  languid. 

The  financial  ability  of  liquor-sellers  generally  to  carry 
their  cases  to  the  higher  courts  can  be  explained  on  the  sole 
ground  of  their  profits  from  the  illegal  traffic.  Many  of 
them  would  be  unable  to  do  so  but  for  the  existence  of 
professional  bondsmen  who  are  said  to  derive  considerable 
revenue  from  their  peculiar  services.  The  regular  charge 
for  furnishing  bonds  in  a  liquor  case  is  assumed  to  be  $50. 
The  risk  is  great,  so  that  only  persons  in  some  manner 
intimately  associated  with  the  liquor  element  can  enga<7e 
in  it. 

The  strength  as  Avell  as  the  vitiating  power  of  the  liquor 
element  in  politics  is  perhaps  as  manifest  in  Portland  as  in 
any  other  city.  The  attitude  of  the  dominant  parties  on 
the  drink  question  has  already  been  generally  defined,  but 
it  ought  to  be  distinctly  stated  in  a  concise  form.  The  Ke- 
publicans  profess  a  belief  in  prohibition,  —  many  of  them,  no 
doubt,  from  sincere  conviction,  —  but  will  not  as  a  party  en- 
force the  laws  at  any  political  loss.  The  Democrats  favor 
a  re-submission  of  the  prohibitory  amendment,  and  may  prop- 
erly be  classed  as  opponents  of  the  existing  laws.  The  two 
leading  parties  are  so  evenly  matched  in  Portland  that  neither 
can  aff'ord  to  ignore  the  strength  of  the  liquor  vote.  This 
vote  is  simply  concerned  with  this  one  question,  "  Which 
party  will  afford  the  better  protection  ?  "  As  the  strength 
of  the  Prohibitionists  is  not  in  the  city  but  in  the  country, 
the  matter  of  enforcement  does  not  become  the  principal 
issue  in  the  election  of  city  officials.  In  fact,  it  M'ould  be 
next  to  impossible  to  choose  men  pledged  to  enforcement. 
The  Prohibitionists  having  long  ceased  to  place  their  trust 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW   IN   PORTLAND,  57 

in  city  officials,  and  the  duty  of  enforcement  having  virtu- 
ally been  transferred  to  the  sheriff  and  his  deputies,  it  is  in 
country  rather  than  in  city  politics  that  we  can  best  trace 
the  influence  of  the  liquor  question.^ 

The  epithets  "  rum-ruled  "  and  "  rum-ridden  "  applied  to 
Portland  by  the  Prohibitionists  themselves,  and  their  calling 
upon  all  electors  to  "  unite  in  one  grand  and  gigantic  effort 
to  redeem  our  county  "  (county  convention  call,  1894),  do 
not  point  to  a  remarkable  condition  of  sobriety.  However, 
men  are  not  wanting  who  assert  that  prohibition  has  checked 
drunkenness  even  in  Portland,  saying  that  its  effects  are 
chiefly  to  be  noticed  among  the  "  middle  class."  Those 
forming  the  topmost  stratum  of  society  are,  of  course,  not, 
as  a  rule,  frequenters  of  bars  of  any  description.  In  the 
clubs  they  are  as  much  accustomed  to  the  use  of  stimulants 
as  the  same  class  in  other  parts  of  New  England.  The  con- 
sensus of  opinion  points  to  an  increasing  use  of  alcoholic 
beverages  by  this  class  during  the  last  decade.  The  habit 
of  using  wines  and  malt  beverages  at  table  is  also  said  to 
have  grown  more  common.  It  is  not  to  this  class,  however, 
that  the  Prohibitionists  look  for  moral  support,  or  the  liquor- 
dealers  for  money.  Those  at  the  opposite  social  extreme 
fill  the  dock  of  the  municipal  court,  and  are  the  mainstays 
of  pocket  peddlers,  certain  kitchen  bars,  and  the  lowest 
"  dives."  Still  their  number  is  not  legion.  If  we  add  to 
it  the  artisan  class,  the  hired  "  help  "  of  various  kinds,  and 
a  large  part  of  the  floating  population,  we  may  have  ac- 
counted for  the  majority  of  saloon  frequenters,  but  not  for 
the  patrons  of  drug-stores  and  those  who  help  to  support 
the  bottling  establishments.  Assuming,  as  we  must,  that 
the  latter  represent  those  between  the  two  social  extremes, 
we  shall  have  the  "  middle  class."  That  it  is  among  those 
occupying  the  middle  social  position  that  the  strongest  tem- 

1  Votes  cast  for  mayor  in  1893:  For  Republican  candidate,  3,871;  for 
Democratic  candidate,  3,498;  for  Prohibitionist  candidate,  53. 


58  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE    AND    ITS   RESULTS. 

perance  sentiment  prevails,  is  well  known.  Still  the  aggre- 
gate of  total  abstainers  is  increased  not  a  little  from  the 
ranks  below  as  well  as  from  above.  To  account  for  the  sale 
of  liquor  on  the  theory  of  a  large  floating  population  alone, 
or  by  asserting  that  drinking  is  mainly  confined  to  one  par- 
ticular class,  is  impossible. 

The  absence  of  liquor  advertisements  in  the  shape  of 
"  gilt-edged  "  saloons  with  attractive  show-windows,  and  the 
fact  that  the  traffic  has  been  driven  into  semi-obscurity,  are 
referred  to  as  indicating  that  prohibition  has  diminished 
temptation,  and  made  it  less  reputable  to  visit  liquor  shops. 
This  is  doubtless  true  to  some  extent.  But  the  bars  are 
within  easy  reach  of  the  best  streets,  if  not  established  on 
them,  as  the  hotel  bars  are,  for  instance,  and  they  ofi"er  a 
dangerous  seclusion  for  the  customer  who  is  once  inside. 
Again,  the  apothecary  shops  hold  out  perhaps  the  most  peril- 
ous kind  of  temptation,  inasmuch  as  the  drink-buyer  is  here 
free  from  observation,  and  is  indviced  to  purchase  a  larger 
quantity  than  is  desired  for  immediate  use. 

Labor  leaders,  and  others  in  position  to  know  the  habits 
of  wage-earners,  incline  generally  to  the  opinion  that  among 
this  class  drinking  is  on  the  increase.  As  a  cause  of 
intemperance,  especially  among  young  men,  was  mentioned 
the  dearth  of  good  pleasure  resorts  and  public  amusements. 
As  one  who  for  fourteen  years  has  been  a  labor  leader  in 
Portland  remarked  :  "  They  [the  Prohibitionists]  try  to 
take  the  barrooms  away  from  the  boys,  and  give  them 
nothing  instead  except  the  churches."  The  saloon  is  still 
a  social  centre  in  Portland,  for  which  no  permanent  substi- 
tutes have  been  oflfered  to  the  large  numbers  of  young 
men,  abounding  in  every  city,  who  cannot  in  any  sense  be 
said  to  have  homes. 

The  "  hard  "  liquor  sold  in  prohibitory  cities  is  of  an 
inferior  quality,  producing  the  quicker  and  more  violent 
forms  of  intemperance.     The  stricter  the   enforcement  the 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND.     59 

poorer  the  liquor,  whicli  is  often  nothing  but  alcohol  pur- 
chased from  druggists  and  sold,  after  dilution,  under  the 
name  of  "  split."  Of  this  article  "hard  drinkers  cannot 
stand  half  as  much  as  they  usually  drink."  During  periods 
of  enforcement,  also,  the  quality  of  the  '•  hard  "  liquor  not 
only  deteriorates,  but  it  may  become  difficult,  on  account 
of  their  bulk,  to  obtain  the  ale  and  beer  whicli  under 
ordinary  circumstances  are  much  more  commonly  drunk 
than  distilled  spirits.  In  Portland  there  has  never  been 
a  time  when  "  split "  and  distilled  spirits  generally  were 
not  obtainable,  but  malt  liquors  have  sometimes  been  ex- 
cluded with  results  other  than  those  intended.  Persons 
friendly  to  prohibition,  and  themselves  total  abstainers, 
attest  the  truth  of  this. 

The  manner  in  which  the  "  drunk  law  "  is  enforced  by 
the  police  deserves  special  consideration.  The  law  is  un- 
derstood to  require  that  intoxicated  persons  disturbing  the 
peace  and  in  a  helpless  condition,  when  not  cared  for  by 
any  one,  shall  be  arrested.  There  are  two  special  tempta- 
tions for  the  police  to  deal  leniently  with  the  intoxicated. 
In  the  first  place,  an  officer  who  has  a  preference  for 
"  rum  beats  "  finds  it  to  his  disadvantage  to  increase  the 
number  of  arrests,  lest  he  be  discredited  among  the  men 
with  whom  he  has  dealings,  and  strengthen  the  cry  for 
stricter  enforcement ;  secondly,  there  is  a  danger  of  push- 
ing men,  who  might  inform  against  him,  too  hard.  The 
frequency  of  public  drunkenness,  and  the  indifference  of 
the  police  to  it,  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  en- 
tries from  the  writer's  note-book  :  — 

"  May  18,  1894.  Twenty  intoxicated  persons,  some  of  them 
in  a  helpless  couditiou,  were  encountered  in  the  course  of  less 
than  an  hour's  walk. 

"  May  20.  Five  boys  were  discovered  sleeping  off  a  debauch 
on  a  wharf.  Policemen  took  no  notice,  although  attention  was 
called.     Boys  apparently  between  1.5  and  20. 

"  May  26.     While  standing  outside  the  Hotel,  between 


60  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

11.30  p.  M.  and  12  m.,  forty  drunken  men  were  counted,  several 
unable  to  take  care  of  themselves,  and  tacking  aimlessly  about. 
Policemen  saw  them  ;  and  one,  who  had  his  attention  called  to 
it,  returned  a  curt  '  Mind  your  own  business.' " 

The  following  incident  was  related  to  the  writer  by  a 
clergyman,  a  prominent  Prohibitionist  and  the  leader  of 
a  temperance  mission  :  On  a  Sunday  evening,  while  walk- 
ing uptown  from  the  Boston  steamboat  wharf,  a  distance 
of  three  fourths  of  a  mile,  he  counted  nineteen  drunken 
men  ;  two  were  stretched  out  on  the  sidewalk,  so  that  he 
had  to  step  over  them  in  walking  by.  Two  policemen 
were  appealed  to,  but  their  only  answer  was  a  sneer.  He 
waited  in  vain  for  a  while  to  see  if  the  patrol  wagon  would 
be  called.  The  incident  was  published  in  a  newspaper. 
At  a  meeting  of  ministers  it  was  referred  to,  and  the 
mayor,  who  was  present,  was  called  upon  to  explain.  He 
said  that  the  article  was  only  one  of  those  too  common 
unsubstantiated  newspaper  flings.  Whereupon  the  author 
of  the  article  arose  and  expressed  his  willingness  to  tes- 
tify against  the  officers  involved. 

Statistics  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  between  the  years 
1872  and  1894  show  remarkable  fluctuations,  and  illustrate 
how  misleading  such  statistics  are  when  unaccompanied  by 
explanations  of  every  modifying  cii'cumstance.  For  in- 
stance, a  decline  in  arrests  per  1,000  inhabitants  since  1873 
is  observed,  and  simultaneously  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  common  drunkards  confined,  which  is  in  direct  contra- 
diction. Equally  mysterious  appears  the  fact  that,  while 
the  number  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  only  has  on  the 
whole  fallen  ofl",  the  number  for  drunkenness  and  disturb- 
ance shows  surprising  growth.  The  explanations  are  found 
in  the  manner  of  the  interpretation  of  the  drunk  law. 
The  city  marshals  have  enjoyed  much  latitude  in  this  re- 
spect, and  have  pursued,  apparently,  whichever  policy  suited 
them  best. 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  PORTLAND.     61 

Persons  arrested  for  drunkenness  alone  are,  as  a  rule, 
not  fined.  Persons  arrested  three  times  for  intoxication 
are  supposed  to  be  classed  as  common  drunkards.  Yet  it 
is  found  that  when  the  number  of  arrests  reached  its  highest 
figure,  —  74  per  1,000  inhabitants  in  1873,  —  not  a  single 
person  was  confined  for  being  a  common  drunkard.  We 
cannot  conceive  of  this  as  purely  accidental.  No  more  can 
the  rapid  increase  of  common  drunkards,  shown  since  1886 
(1886,  81 ;  1887,  136 ;  1888,  174  ;  1889,  136  ;  1890, 154 ; 
1891,  87  ;  1892,  68  ;  1893,  170 ;  1894,  183),  be  taken  as 
evidence  that  their  numbers  actually  swelled  to  such  ex- 
tent, or  that  intemperance  grew  with  such  strides.  A  gen- 
tleman who  for  years  has  had  much  official  experience  with 
drunkards  says  that  the  police  frequently  mark  particu- 
larly obnoxious  or  unruly  persons  as  common  drunkards, 
not  necessarily  in  a  vindictive  spirit,  but  to  subject  them  to 
the  severer  punishment. 

The  safest  explanation  of  the  remarkable  fluctuations 
shown  by  the  statistics  is  found  in  the  changes  in  the  office 
of  city  marshal.  The  great  increase  of  arrests  in  1873  (total, 
2,400),  as  compared  with  the  preceding  year  (925),  must  be 
attributed  to  the  advent  of  a  new  official,  who  held  office 
until  1876.  During  his  term  the  percentage  of  arrests  did 
not  vary  greatly,  and  was  the  highest  known  for  Portland. 
Under  his  successor,  from  1876  to  1882  inclusive,  there 
was  no  noteworthy  change  in  the  number  of  arrests  either 
for  better  or  worse.  From  1883  to  1886,  each  year  saw  a 
change  in  the  marshalship,  the  person  elected  in  the  latter 
year  holding  office  till  the  end  of  1888.  The  next  official 
remained  in  office  two  years,  and  appears  to  have  dealt 
rather  leniently  with  the  drunkards.  In  1891  and  1892 
there  was  a  falling  off  in  the  number  of  arrests.  It  would 
be  pleasant  to  attribute  this  to  the  period  of  enforcement 
which  began  in  the  former  year,  but  the  figures  for  1893 
and   1894  flatly  contradict   such  an   assumption.      We   are 


62  PKOHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS    RESULTS. 

thus  compelled  to  attribute  it  to  lax  police  methods.  In 
the  report  for  1890,  the  city  marshal,  in  speaking  of  the 
arrests  for  violations  of  the  liquor  law,  said  :  "  The  rum- 
sellers  have  been  driven  from  one  form  of  selling  to  another 
more  secret,  but  none  the  less  productive  of  drunkenness  in 
our  streets."  What  was  true  of  that  year  is  generally 
true,  that  periodic  enforcements  do  not  tend  to  diminish 
the  number  of  arrests  in  large  cities.  "  The  results  of  pro- 
hibition in  Portland  cannot  be  argued  from  any  statistics  of 
arrests,  because  there  never  has  been  a  time  when  liquor 
could  not  be  obtained." 

The  conclusion  must  be,  that  it  is  impossible  to  state 
from  the  statistics  adduced  just  how  far  they  reflect  greater 
or  less  public  inebriety.  The  general  impression  is,  that 
drunkenness  is  as  prevalent  now  as  ever  before  the  consti- 
tutional amendment  went  into  effect,  if  not  more  so. 

The  toleration  of  an  open  defiance  of  the  laws  and  the 
Constitution  indicates,  not  merely  a  widespread  lack  of 
sympathy  with  prohibitory  measures,  but  a  callousness  of 
public  sentiment  which  of  itself  is  grave.  Citizens  have 
become  so  accustomed  to  this  defiance  that  little  attention  is 
paid  to  the  continuance  of  violation  of  the  liquor  statutes, 
or  to  the  contempt  for  law  and  order  generally  which  is  an 
inevitable  consequence.  Day  by  day  and  year  by  year  tlie 
same  items  of  searches  and  seizures,  and  arrests  for  offenses 
against  the  liquor  laws,  appear  with  tolerable  regularity  in 
the  newspapers.  The  public  has  ceased  to  take  special 
note  of  them.  A  local  judge,  in  speaking  of  conditions 
under  a  prohibitory  law  not  enforced,  has  said :  "  The 
value  of  the  oath  has  been  reduced  fifty  per  cent,  in  this 
State.  Perjury  (for  which  the  maximum  penalty  is  im- 
prisonment for  life)  is  so  common  that  it  no  longer  attracts 
attention.  And  it  is  not  confined  only  to  the  liquor  ele- 
ment ;  the  effect  of  it  is  far-reaching  and  growing.  People 
talk  of  it  openly  without  a  blush." 


THE   LAW    IN   A   TYPICAL    VILLAGE.  63 

Members  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  have  said  sul> 
stantially  the  same  thing,  and  prosecutions  for  perjury 
committed  during  the  trial  of  liquor  cases  are  not  frequent. 
Closely  akin  to  perjury  is  the  hypocrisy  engendered  when 
people  are  called  upon  to  support  a  law  that  they  do  not 
believe  in.  The  support  of  prohibition  at  the  polls  and  in 
party  platforms,  while  it  is  so  ill  enforced,  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  ground  that  men  have  become  hypocrites.  A 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  quoted  in  public  news- 
papers, referring  to  conditions  in  Cumberland  County,  said : 
"  It  is  a  question  whether  the  prohibitory  law  makes  more 
hypocrites  or  more  drunkards."  It  would  perhaps  have 
been  more  just  to  say  :  '*  It  is  a  question  whether  more 
men  have  become  drunkards  or  hypocrites  under  the  pro- 
hibitory law."  Of  course  the  rank  and  file  of  the  third- 
party  men  do  honestly  believe  in  the  law,  and  fervently 
work  for  its  full  execution. 

THE    ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW  IN  A  TYPICAL   VILLAGE. 

In  semi-rural  districts  —  villages  free  from  numbers  of 
factory  operatives,  and  removed  from  the  influence  of  com- 
mercial and  industrial  centres,  with  a  nearly  homogeneous 
population  of  native  stock  —  prohibition  should  yield  its 
best  results. 

Farmington,  the  shire  town  of  Oxford  County,  about 
four  hours  by  railway  from  Lewiston,  was  spoken  of  by 
well-informed  Prohibitionists  as  a  place  where  the  law 
worked  under  the  most  favorable  conditions.  The  town 
had  in  1890  a  population  of  3,207,  including  all  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  town,  which  covers  an  area  of  23,000  acres 
and  contains  three  other  villages,  —  West  Farmington,  Far- 
mington Falls,  and  Fairbanks.  Farmington  proper  has 
about  1,700  inhabitants.  Here  dwell  the  greater  number 
of  the  107  people  of  foreign  birth.  They  are  nearly  all 
French  Canadians,  generally  esteemed  for  their  thrift  and 


64  PKOHIBITION    IN   MAINE   AND    ITS    KESULTS. 

exemplary  habits.  With  these  few  exceptions  the  inhabit- 
ants are  of  pure  American  stock,  brought  up,  both  in  school 
and  in  church,  to  practice  total  abstinence.  As  a  shire 
town,  and  the  largest  in  the  county,  Farmington  has  at- 
tracted a  number  of  professional  men,  who,  together  with 
those  engaged  in  mercantile  pursuits,  constitute  the  larger 
portion  of  the  population.  There  are  a  small  box-factory 
and  a  lumber  mill  or  two.  The  town  has  always  given 
public  expression  to  a  strong  prohibitory  sentiment.  Yet 
public  opinion  has  not  been  strong  enough  to  extirpate 
liquor-selling.  Five  United  States  special  liquor  taxes 
were  paid  for  by  residents  in  1894.  At  two  of  the  hotels 
both  malt  and  distilled  liquors  are  supplied  to  guests  in 
their  rooms,  and  not  infrequently  to  others  who  drop  in ; 
but  there  are  no  bars.  At  one  of  the  three  drug-stores,  at 
least,  liquor  can  be  bought  by  any  trusted  customer.  Fur- 
thermore, it  is  said  by  old  residents  that  illicit  sales  are 
carried  on  periodically  at  from  one  to  three  other  places, 
but  their  identity  is  not  easily  revealed.  An  official,  whose 
duty  it  is  to  enforce  prohibition,  is  quoted  as  saying  that 
*'  from  one  to  six  packages  of  liquor  arrive  by  express 
every  day."  Persons  soliciting  orders  for  liquors  pay  occa- 
sional visits  to  the  village.  One  "  wet  grocery  "  drummer, 
met  by  the  writer,  spoke  of  his  trade  as  "  brisk."  Three 
cider  mills  supply  "  applejack,"  which  is  consumed  in  con- 
siderable quantities.  To  the  town  officers,  if  not  to  the 
public  generally,  the  sale  of  liquor  at  the  hotels  and  drug- 
stores or  other  shops  is  well  known.  That  all  should  be 
oblivious  to  the  existence  of  United  States  licenses  is  hardly 
credible.  Still  the  presence  of  a  liquor  agency  would  be 
regarded  as  a  blot  on  the  community. 

Since  the  letter  of  the  prohibitory  law  is  not  obeyed,  we 
miist  expect  to  find  the  question  of  enforcement  a  frequent 
issue  in  local  politics.  No  man  can  hope  for  election  as 
sheriff  who    exliilnts   open   hostility  to  the    law,  but    the 


THE   LAW   IN   A   TYPICAL   VILLAGE.  65 

uncompromising  Prohibitionist  is  equally  sure  of  formidable 
opposition.  It  is  not  said  that  any  officer  personally  profits 
by  the  protection  of  liquor-sellers,  but  the  evidence  shows 
that  they  do  not  make  a  strong  fight  against  the  violation 
of  law,  —  whether  from  lack  of  sympathy  with  it,  or  because 
they  do  not  wish  to  expose  men  who  are  their  friends.  In 
a  small  village  friendship  plays  an  important  part. 

As  to  the  actual  state  of  sobriety  in  the  town,  the  statis- 
tics of  arrests  cannot  be  accepted  as  trustworthy  evidence. 
While  they  indicate  on  the  whole  a  falling  off  in  the 
number  since  1886,  the  fluctuations  are  almost  abnormal, 
and  on  the  whole  there  is  a  lack  of  conformity  between  the 
number  made  for  drunkenness  and  those  made  for  viola- 
tions of  the  liquor  law.  Thus,  in  1888,  only  five  liquor 
cases  came  up  before  the  municipal  court,  but  ten  persons 
were  arrested  for  drunkenness ;  in  the  next  year,  only  four ; 
and  yet  no  less  than  twenty-eight  searches  and  seizures 
were  made,  and  seven  persons  were  indicted  for  selling 
liquor  on  other  warrants.  Habitual  drunkards  are  still 
found,  but  one  may  confidently  believe  that  there  is  less 
inebriety  than  there  was,  say,  ten  years  ago.  While  an 
institute  for  the  treatment  of  drunkenness  was  open  in  the 
village,  about  forty  patients  from  Farmington  and  vicinity 
were  treated  ;  and  occasionally  one  meets  persons  under  the 
influence  of  patent-medicine  preparations. 

When  to  the  number  of  places  where  liquor-selling  goes 
on  undisturbed  is  added  the  number  of  arrests  for  ofi'enses 
against  the  law,  it  appears  how  far  short  the  efforts  fall  to 
stamp  out  the  traffic.  Thirty-five  liquor  cases  in  one  year 
(as  in  1889)  is  an  excessive  number  in  a  population  of 
3,207  in  a  largely  agricultural  community. 

It  is  believed  that  Farmington  may  fairly  be  regarded  as 
typical  of  the  towns  in  Maine  where  the  prohibition  law  is 
most  nearly  observed  or  enforced.  Of  course  there  are  sin- 
gle villages  where  its  enforcement  is  more  rigid  and  others 
where  it  is  more  lax. 


66  PEOHIBITION    IN    MAINE   AND    ITS   EESULTS. 

The  effects  of  prohibition  in  the  State  at  large  are  best 
shown  by  a  review  of  its  working  in  the  counties,  with  par- 
ticular comment  on  communities  specially  studied.  This 
study  is  the  more  natural,  since  the  liquor  traffic  is  dealt 
with  by  counties,  and  their  methods  are  not  uniform.  The 
history  of  the  enforcement  is  not  minutely  related.  The 
present  condition  is  typical  of  the  past  and  sums  it  up. 

CUMBERLAND    COUNTY, 

The  efforts  to  suppress  the  traffic  in  Portland  naturally 
extend  to  other  parts  of  the  county,  with  some  success  in 
the  rural  communities  of  the  western  portion.  But  this 
does  not  mean  that  consumption  has  been  stopped  in  the 
same  measure.  In  the  absence  of  local  dealers,  supplies 
may  be  obtained  from  Portland  on  a  few  hours'  notice,  and 
agents  frequently  appear  to  solicit  orders.  Some  kitchen 
bars  in  a  few  of  the  western  villages  are  said  to  sell  with- 
out a  United  States  license,  but  their  operations  must  be 
insignificant.  In  small  places  in  the  populous  counties 
would-be  liquor-sellers  have  a  wholesome  fear  of  United 
States  marshals,  who  are  much  more  dreaded  than  local  offi- 
cials. The  cities  of  Deering  and  Westbrook  may  be  regarded 
as  suburbs  of  Portland,  closely  connected  with  that  city 
by  rail  and  electric  cars.  Nevertheless  liquor  taxes  are 
paid  in  both  places.  The  prevalence  of  drunkenness  among 
young  men  in  Westbrook  lately  occasioned  much  talk  there. 
Cape  Elizabeth,  a  large  town  with  seven  post-offices,  is  just 
across  the  upper  harbor  from  Portland,  and  is  inhabited  by  a 
fishing  and  farming  population.  Notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  perhaps  one  half  of  tlie  inhabitants  have  easy  access 
to  the  Portland  saloons,  five  persons  on  the  Cape  pay  the 
special  tax.  Cushing's  and  Peak's  islands  belong  to  Port- 
land ;  it  is  not  known  that  liquor  is  sold  on  them  except 
in  the  summer  time. 

The  only  city  in  the  county  removed  some  distance  from 


ANDROSCOGGIN   COUNTY.  67 

Portland  is  Brunswick,  the  home  of  Bowdoin  College.  The 
many  French  Canadian  residents  here  maintain  an  extensive 
kitchen-bar  trade.  The  number  of  places  at  which  liquor 
is  sold  must  thus  be  placed  higher  than  indicated  by 
the  number  of  taxes  paid  (nine  in  1894-95).  The  traffic 
has  never  been  stopped  under  the  prohibitory  law.  It 
is  alleged  that  the  business  is  protected  in  a  mild  way. 
Remembering  tliat  Brunswick  is  under  the  same  officials 
as  Portland,  this  does  not  seem  improbable.  The  154 
places  in  the  county  where  liquor  is  sold,  as  shown  by  the 
payment  of  the  United  States  tax,  contain  69,598  of  the 
90,949  inhabitants  of  the  county. 

ANDROSCOGGI>r  COUNTY. 

Androscoggin  County,  although  one  of  the  smallest  in 
area,  ranks  sixth  in  population  (48,968),  of  which  consider- 
ably more  than  one  half  is  found  in  the  cities  of  Auburn 
and  Lewiston.  The  question  of  enforcement  of  the  law 
for  the  whole  county,  therefore,  involves  its  enforcement  in 
these  cities.  A  manufacturing  community  witli  a  foreign 
population  of  8,563  out  of  a  total  of  21,701  in  1890, 
Lewiston  is  not  favorable  to  a  prohibitory  law.  The  in- 
habitants of  foreign  birth,  mostly  French  Canadians,  gener- 
ally oppose  it.  It  is  not  known  that  there  has  ever  been 
a  protracted  period  of  strict  enforcement.  The  many  at- 
tempts have  failed,  partly  because  sympathy  with  the  law 
has  been  lacking,  and  partly  because  the  temptation  to 
protect  the  traffic  for  private  profit  has  proved  too  strong. 
Not  even  an  offer  of  premiums  to  officials  elected  to  stop  it 
has  had  the  desired  effect.  One  official,  on  retiring  from 
office,  is  said  to  have  remarked,  witli  reference  to  such  an 
offer,  "  One  might  as  well  try  to  turn  back  the  current  of 
the  Androscoggin  Kiver  as  to  stop  rumselling  in  Lewiston." 

No  resident  having  a  personal  acquaintance  with  the 
liquor  element  puts  the  number  of  places  where  liquor  is 


68  PKOHIBITION    IN    MAINE   AND   ITS   KESULTS. 

sold  in   Lewiston  lower  than  200.       A  liquor-dealer  who 
visits  the  city  periodically  says  that  there  are  150,  includ- 
ing hotel  bars,  drug-stores,  common  saloons,  and  kitchen  bars. 
It  is  difficult  to  locate  the  kitchen  bars,  which  appear  in  the 
most  unexpected  places,  —  in  the  rear  of  barber-shops,  fish 
markets,  fruit-stands,  —  and  are  commonly  carried  on  by 
French  Canadians,  who  sell  to  their  own  people  and  are 
very  reticent.    At  the  hotel  bars  and  in  the  ordinary  saloons 
liquor  is  dispensed  openly.      Many  saloons  are  found   on 
the  principal  street  (Lisbon)  within  hailing  distance  of  the 
City  Hall.      Signs  of  the  business  done  within  are  plainly 
visible   from   without.       At   the   perfectly   equipped    bars, 
liquor  is  kept  in  sight,  even  large  casks  of  ale  being  rolled 
about  without  a  show  of  fear.      The  city  supports  no  less 
than  30   "  drug-stores,"  19  of  which  are  on  Lisbon   Street 
within  a  space  of  little  more  than  half  a  mile.      At  nearly 
all,  if  not  at  all  of  them,  liquor  is  sold  by  the  bottle  or 
the  glass.      In  many   instances   the  shops  are   merely  dis- 
guised as  drug-stores  ;   the  various  receptacles  are  filled  with 
colored  water,  a  few  cheap  articles  are  exposed  for  sale,  but 
in  the  rear  are  regular  bars  with  a  full  line  of  drinks,  and 
malt  liquors   on  draught.      In    a   recent   report   the   State 
Commission  of  Pharmacy  quotes  from  a  letter  by  a  "  well- 
known  resident :  "  "  There  are  thirty  drug-stores  in  Lewis- 
ton,  and  half  of  them  are  run  by  men  not  registered."      The 
Commission  does  not  refute  this  charge,  but  apparently  in- 
dorses it.      That  these   "  dummy  drug-stores,"  as  they  are 
called,  are  allowed  to  exist  shows  to  what  extent  the  law 
is  unenforced.      In  addition  to  the  bars  of  various  kinds, 
Lewiston  has  six  "  drinking  clubs." 

The  liquor-dealers  themselves  allege  that  they  have  to 
pay  for  the  immunity  they  enjoy  in  selling,  and  outsiders 
say  openly  that  of  course  the  barkeepers  have  their  friends 
who  protect  them.  The  police  apparently  restrict  their 
efforts  to  seizures  of  liquor  in  transit,  but  seizures  are  often 


ANDROSCOGGIN   COUNTY. 


69 


evaded  by  having  the  goods  shipped  to  Farmington  and 
returned  to  Lewiston.  Nevertheless,  the  interference  of 
the  officers  cannot  be  said  to  check  the  trade. ^  Most  of  the 
raids  by  the  police  are  directed  against  the  kitchen  bars. 

SALES    OF    THE    LEWISTON    LIQUOR   AGENCY. 
Tears.  Amount.  Years.  Amount. 

1880 $5,.5-25.84  1S87 .^0,202.40 

1881 5,625.47  1888 10,:30().49 

1882  .....    0,822.49  1889 9,766.35 

1883 5,943.66  1890 15,105.46 

1884 7,542.64  1891 10,575.13 

1885 10,164.64  1892 11,710.63 

1886 8,255.67 

The  statistics  of  arrests  are  of  little  or  no  value  as  de- 
termining the  sobriety  in  the  city.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  intemperance  is  more  common  now  than  it  was  ten 
years  ago,  but  not  to  the  extent  that  the  statistics  of  arrest 
would  seem  to  show.  The  number  of  arrests  was  53  in 
1882  and  2G5  in  1892,  or  2.7  and  12.4  respectively  per 
1,000  inhabitants.  The  largest  number  of  arrests  in  a 
single  year  during  a  period  of  thirteen  years  was  469  in 
1890,  or  21.6  per  1,000  inhabitants.  In  1883  no  less  than 
14  persons  out  of  a  total  of  65  arrested  were  classed  as 
common  drunkards.  In  1892,  with  over  four  times  as 
many  arrests  (265),  not  a  single  individual  was  reckoned  a 
common  drunkard.  The  ratio  of  seizures  during  the  period 
1880-92  did  not  increase  in  proportion  to  the  arrests  for 
drunkenness.  So  far  as  could  be  observed,  the  police  are 
lenient  with   intoxicated  persons.      But   it  should  be  said 

1  Under  date  of  July  8,  1895,  a  prominent  citiz(>n  of  Lewiston  •writes: 
"The  liquor  traflic  is  simply  run  in  the  interest  of  the  Republican  party 
here,  and  under  their  administration  no  notice  whatever  is  taken  of  it, 
other  than  the  occasional  raiding  of  some  old  woman's  kitchen  or  the 
spasmodic  seizure  of  a  wagon  load  of  beer.  While  there  are  sixty-three 
liquor-dealers  paying  special  tax  (as  retailers),  there  are  more  than  three 
times  that  number  of  sellers  who  make  no  attempt  at  concealment  of  the 
same.  These  things  are  so  well  known  that  it  is  scarcely  a  matter  of 
comment." 


70  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

that  the  force  is  too  small  to  cover  the  city  properly. 
Probably  the  fluctuations  in  sales  at  the  city  liquor  agency 
do  not  indicate  strict  enforcement,  since  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  liquor  has  ever  been  sold  with  greater  free- 
dom than  now,  and  still  the  sales  at  the  agency  maintain 
very  high  figures.  The  common  supposition  that  it  is  sim- 
ply another  "  legalized  rumshop  "  seems  to  have  foundation. 
Auburn  enjoys  the  singular  distinction  of  being  tlie  only 
city  in  Maine  in  which  no  liquor  is  sold  for  tippling  pur- 
poses, unless  at  the  agency.  Its  proximity  to  Lewiston 
accounts  for  this  condition  —  only  a  short  bridge  interven- 
ing between  them. 

AROOSTOOK    COUNTY, 

Until  recent  years  the  vast  region  included  in  Aroostook 
County  has  been  regarded  as  a  wilderness,  and  the  greater 
portion  of  it  remains  such  to-day.  Its  6,800  square  miles 
of  territory  contain  only  49,589  inhabitants,  chiefly  settled 
along  the  border  of  the  State  from  south  to  north.  More 
than  one  half  of  them  are  of  foreign  birth  or  parentage. 
Whole  towns,  like  Fort  Kent  and  Frenchville,  are  popu- 
lated almost  exclusively  by  French  Canadians,  not  a  single 
American  name  appearing  in  the  list  of  town  officers  and 
business  men.  Others  are  occupied  by  immigrants  of  other 
nationalities.  With  a  heterogeneous  and  scattered  popula- 
tion, it  is  not  strange  that  the  liquor  traffic  should  flourish 
nearly  unchecked.  The  number  of  United  States  special 
liquor  taxes  (sixty-five  in  1894-95)  is  conclusive  evidence 
on  this  point,  but  these  by  no  means  represent  the  extent 
of  the  traffic.  Despite  the  vigilance  of  federal  officers, 
many  sell  without  a  license.  The  long  stretch  of  border 
offers  excellent  facilities  for  smuggling,  and  the  necessity  of 
transportation  over  the  railroads  from  the  interior  of  the 
State  is  thus  partly  obviated.  Setting  aside  the  plantations 
and  unorganized  places  and  taking  only  the  towns,  we  find 


FRANKLIN   AND    HANCOCK   COUNTIES.  71 

that  17  of  these,  with  a  total  jDopulation  of  25,075,  contain 
special  liquor  tax  payers,  as  against  19,  having  13,540  in- 
habitants, in  which  no  such  taxes  are  paid.  The  unusually 
large  number  of  liquor  tax  payers  in  the  more  important 
centres,  notably  Caribou  16,  population  4,087,  Houlton  20, 
population  4,015,  and  Presque  Isle  5,  population  3,046,  are 
especially  significant. 

FRANKLIN  COUNTY. 

The  total  absence  of  large  villages  has  simplified  the 
question  of  enforcing  the  liquor  laws  in  Franklin  County. 
Extensive  tracts  are  still  but  sparsely  inhabited ;  in  fact, 
the  census  shows  a  distinct  loss  in  population  for  the  whole 
county.  The  characteristics  noted  for  Farraington  apply 
more  or  less  to  all  of  the  villages.  Within  a  year  the 
number  of  persons  paying  the  United  States  tax  has  been 
increased  by  five  (twelve  in  all  in  1894-95).  In  Kingfield, 
Strong,  and  other  places  some  illicit  traffic  is  known  to 
exist.  While  probably  less  spirits  are  sold  in  this  county 
—  in  some  places  none — than  in  any  other,  and  it  thus 
shows  as  encouraging  results  from  prohibition  as  any,  it  is 
also  the  best  illustration  of  how  far  it  is  possible  to  force 
complete  obedience  to  the  law  under  the  most  favorable 
circumstances. 

HANCOCK    COUNTY. 

Hancock  is  one  of  the  seven  counties  in  the  State  in 
which  the  prohibitory  law  is  allowed  to  slumber.  In  so  far 
as  the  county  officials  bestir  themselves,  the  repletion  of  the 
treasury  from  the  fines  collected  appears  to  be  the  prime 
motive.      Generally  the  law  remains  inoperative. 

A  prohibitive  regime  at  Bar  Harbor  and  the  other  water- 
ing-places in  the  county  would  not  only  be  resented  by 
visitors,  but  would  perhaps  prove  disastrous  financially  to 
those  who  derive  much  profit  from  the  large  summer  popu- 
lation.     Hence  the  summer  hotels  at  Bar  Harbor  are,  as  a 


72  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   KESULTS. 

rule,  let  severely  alone.  At  the  end  of  the  season  occa- 
sional raids  are  made,  and  the  remaining  stock,  very  small, 
of  course,  is  confiscated.  The  extent  to  which  the  law  is 
violated  at  Bar  Harbor  is  indicated  by  the  number  of 
United  States  special  tax  payments  (twenty-five  in  1894— 
95).  So  long  as  the  hotel-keepers  are  practically  assured 
of  non-interference,  the  officials  cannot  very  well  prevent 
the  existence  of  dramshops  pure  and  simple.  Except  at 
the  summer  resorts,  Hancock  County  offers  conditions  not 
unfavorable  for  a  prohibitory  law.  The  foreign  element  of 
the  population  forms  an  insignificant  part,  nor  is  there  a 
single  seaport  of  prominence.  The  only  place  designated 
as  a  city  is  Ellsworth,  a  retrogressive  place  with  a  popula- 
tion of  4,804  in  1890.  The  city  limits  extend  over  an 
area  of  53,000  acres,  equal  to  the  area  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  it  includes  three  villages  and  many  farms.  Ells- 
worth proper  has  a  population  of  scarcely  more  than  2,200 
inhabitants,  but  contains  14  bars  and  four  other  places 
(apothecary  shops)  where  liquor  is  sold,  or  one  to  about 
219  inhabitants.  The  traffic  is  but  ill  concealed  ;  the  dealers 
no  longer  fear  expulsion,  but  only  fines  accompanied  perhaps 
by  more  or  less  unpleasant  raids.  Gambling  was  going  on 
in  several  saloons  visited  by  the  writer. 

KENNEBEC    COUNTY. 

In  Kennebec  County  prohibition  has  to  meet  conditions 
not  unlike  those  in  Androscoggin  County.  There  is  a  large 
foreign  population  living  in  cities  with  extensive  manufac- 
turing interests.  Of  the  57,012  inhabitants,  12,712,  or  22 
per  cent.,  are  foreign-born  or  of  foreign  parentage  —  nearly 
all  French  Canadians  employed  in  the  mills,  or  as  lumber- 
men. Kennebec  is  one  of  the  counties  where  the  law  is 
enforced  for  revenue  only  ;  that  is,  seizures  are  made  for  the 
purpose  of  collecting  fines  to  defray  county  expenses.  Local 
officials  are  occasionally  elected  with  the  understanding  that 


KENNEBEC    COUNTY.  73 

they  must  suppress  the  sale  of  liquor,  but  they  have  not 
effected  any  permanent  improvement. 

Augusta,  the  capital  of  the  State,  supports  50  places 
where  liquor  is  sold  by  persons  paying  the  United  States 
tax,  including  the  drug-stores,  of  which  there  are  11,  the 
hotels,  eating-houses,  and  ordinary  saloons  ;  also  12  kitchen 
bars,  most  of  them  situated  along  the  water-front  in  the 
French  Canadian  quarters.  This  gives  a  total  of  62,  or  one 
to  about  170  inhabitants,  according  to  the  census  of  1890. 
In  the  very  house  where  the  liquor  laws  passed  at  the 
State  House  are  said  to  be  made,  the  law  is  broken,  and 
that,  it  is  said,  by  the  very  men  who  vote  for  every  pro- 
hibitory amendment.  The  local  express  companies  help  to 
swell  the  flood  of  liquor  by  taking  orders  for  so  small  a 
quantity  as  one  quart  at  a  time.  One  company,  however, 
does  not  deign  to  accept  orders  for  less  than  five  gallons. 
A  former  city  marshal  owns  one  of  these  express  lines.  It 
is  commonly  asserted  that  the  dealers  *'  stand  in  "  with  the 
officers  of  the  law.  One  dealer  made  the  sententious  re- 
mark, "  You  don't  suppose  the  officers  would  be  such  fools 
as  not  to  touch  me  up."  Still,  men  are  chosen  for  office 
on  the  pledge  that  they  will  rid  the  city  of  liquor-selling. 
It  is  not  difficult  for  them  to  keep  up  a  semblance  of  activ- 
ity. A  city  marshal  may,  for  instance,  carry  on  a  spas- 
modic warfare  against  dealers  of  the  opposite  political  faith, 
while  he  shields  those  of  his  own.  Or  should  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  moment  demand  that  his  party  associates  also  be 
punished,  he  may  confine  his  operations  to  seizures,  and,  at 
a  later  date,  return  the  liquor  seized  to  its  owners.  These 
things  have  been  done  in  Augusta,  private  honor  and  public 
trust  being  sold  as  merchandise  in  all  matters  concerning 
the  prohibitory  law  and  its  execution. 

At  Gardiner,  a  few  miles  below  Augusta,  on  the  Kenne- 
bec River,  liquor  is  sold  possibly  with  still  more  freedom. 
The  practice  of  serving  liquor  by  the  glass  is  more  common 


74  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

at  the  drug-stores.  A  dealer  of  whom  inquiry  was  made 
estimated  the  number  of  places  where  spirits  are  served  at 
19.  There  are  20  special  liquor  tax  payers.  It  is  a  con- 
servative estimate  that  in  Gardiner  there  is  one  liquor  shop 
to  about  274  inhabitants. 

In  Hallowell,  situated  between  Augusta  and  Gardiner, 
conditions  are  not  perceptibly  better.  In  Waterville  the 
number  of  United  States  special  liquor  tax  payers  (twenty- 
three  in  number  in  1894-95)  does  not  fairly  represent  the 
extent  of  the  liquor  trade,  A  personal  count  of  the  places 
where  liquor  is  sold  (including  hotels,  apothecary  shops, 
kitchen  bars,  and  common  saloons)  gives  a  total  of  about 
thirty-five,  or  one  to  a  little  more  than  200  inhabitants. 
Saloons  may  be  found  occupying  some  of  the  best  sites  on 
the  principal  street  of  the  city,  some  of  which  serve  exclu- 
sively the  "  gentlemen  trade."  While  the  traffic  is  pro- 
tected, bribery  is  said  to  be  less  common  here  than  in  other 
cities.  An  instance  was  related  by  a  trustworthy  person 
illustrating  the  temptation  to  embark  in  liquor-selling  for 
the  great  profit  in  it.  One  man  approached  an  official  and 
asked  his  permission  to  open  a  bar  for  six  months.  The 
immediate  answer  was,  "  What  will  you  give  ?  "  The  man 
promised  one  half  of  the  profits.  Mutual  fear  prevented 
the  closing  of  the  bargain  at  that  time,  but  the  man  owns 
a  saloon  to-day.  The  proportion  of  saloons  to  inhabitants 
in  the  cities  of  Kennebec  County  does  not  admit  of  the  sup- 
position tliat  the  anti-saloon  sentiment  is  common  or  very 
active  ;  nor  is  it  possible  that  they  could  exist  in  such 
number  without  the  patronage  of  the  rural  population. 
The  truth  is  that  the  liquor  business  is  overdone  in  these 
places.  Many  dealers  find  it  difficult  to  pay  the  periodical 
fines  and  to  meet  the  other  expenses  of  the  traffic.  If  we 
add  up  the  population  of  the  cities  and  towns  paying 
United  States  special  liquor  taxes  and  those  that  pay  none, 
we  get  a  total  of  34,994  "  wet  "  as  against  22,018  for  the 


KNOX   COUNTY.  75 

towns  reckoned  as  "  dry,"  or  about  60  per    cent,  of  the 
whole  population  of  the  county. 

KNOX    COUNTY. 

Counties  with  a  large  seafaring  population-  are  rather  un- 
congenial to  prohibitory  legislation.  Knox  County  is  such 
a  one,  but  it  harbors  only  a  few  foreigners.  The  law  is 
enforced  as  it  is  in  Penobscot  County.  When  the  saloons 
become  too  bold,  or  upon  the  advent  of  some  strong  prohi- 
bitionist new  to  the  city  (usually  a  clergyman),  a  period  of 
liquor  war  ensues.  The  result  is  a  temporary  suspension 
of  the  business.  During  the  progress  of  the  present  in- 
vestigation many  raids  were  made  in  Rockland  at  the  insti- 
gation of  the  clergy.  What  effect  they  had  may  be  judged 
from  a  single  instance.  In  the  week  of  June  17,  1894, 
one  of  the  principal  hotel  bars  was  raided  twice,  but  it 
continued  to  do  a  lively  trade,  and  was  patronized  almost 
exclusively  by  the  well-to-do  citizens.  It  is  a  conservative 
estimate  that  liquor  is  sold  at  about  forty-five  places  in 
Rockland.  One  drinking-place  to  171  inhabitants  is  there- 
fore the  average  for  this  city.  Rockland  bears  all  the  marks 
of  a  locality  in  which  intemperance  is  common  and  not 
confined  to  any  particular  class.  The  viciousness  of  the 
lower  drinking  element  is  greater  here  than  was  observed 
elsewhere.  The  relations  of  the  liquor-dealers  to  ofiicials 
charged  with  the  enforcements  of  the  law  are  in  many  re- 
spects similar  to  those  noted  in  other  cities.  Protection  is 
not  always  given  gratis,  yet  conditions  are  better  than,  for 
instance,  in  Augusta  and  Lewiston.  Men  who  cannot  be 
bought  with  money  may  be  bribed  by  votes.  More  than 
one  attempt  at  continued  enforcement  has  been  frustrated 
by  the  intimation  tl)at  if  the  officer  did  not  ''  let  up,"  he 
could  expect  no  further  favors  at  the  hands  of  the  voters. 
This  kind  of  intimidation  is  practiced  not  only  by  liquor- 
dealers,  and  it  could  never  prove  effective  unless  it  repre- 


1^ 


76  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

sented  strong  public  sentiment.  For  several  years  there 
has  been  no  change  of  city  marshals.  Presumably,  there- 
fore, the  same  methods  have  obtained  with  regard  to  arrests. 
Supposing  that  the  city  is  better  policed  than  it  was  ten 
years  ago,  there  is  still  reason  to  believe  that  intemperance 
has  increased.  So  far  as  could  be  learned,  the  police  are 
not  very  strict  about  making  arrests  for  drunkenness. 
Their  inactivity  in  arresting  liquor-sellers  also  is  plainly 
shown  by  statistics  for  the  years  1885-93.  In  1893  only 
ten  persons  were  arrested  for  illegal  selling,  while  236  were 
charged  with  drunkenness,  not  to  mention  those  held  in 
"  safekeeping,"  of  whom  the  greater  number  were  intoxi- 
cated. No  town  in  Maine,  except  the  seashore  resorts,  has 
so  many  liquor-shops  in  proportion  to  the  inhabitants  as 
Camden,  where  no  less  than  twelve  persons  paid  the  United 
States  special  tax  in  1893,  or  one  to  about  206  inhabitants.! 
In  ten  out  of  sixteen  towns  in  Knox  County  liquor  is  sold. 
The  towns  which  are  presumably  free  from  the  traffic  con- 
tain only  5,494  inhabitants  of  the  total  of  31,473,  or  17 
per  cent.  Under  such  circumstances  wholesome  results 
from  prohibition  cannot  be  looked  for. 

LINCOLN    COUNTY. 

Lincoln  County  offers  singularly  favorable  conditions  for 
the,  enforcement  of  a  prohibitory  law.  Its  population  is 
nearly  all  of  one  race  and  religion  ;  only  480  persons  are 
recorded  as  of  foreign  nativity.  But  here,  as  elsewhere, 
the  payment  of  United  States  special  taxes  (18  in  1894-95) 
offers  much  prima  facie  evidence  of  intent  to  sell.  It  may, 
however,  be  said  in  extenuation  of  some  of  the  towns, 
notably  of  Boothbay  Harbor  and  Wiscasset,  that  they  are 
summer  resort  towns ;  and  as  if  by  common  consent,  viola- 
tion of  the  statutes  at  places  where  summer  guests  abound 

1  In  3894  only  five  persons  paid  special  taxes  ;  a  period  of  enforcement 
had  set  in. 


OXFORD  AND  PENOBSCOT  COUNTIES.        77 

is  overlooked.      Whether  liquor  is  sold  to  a  greater  extent 
than  indicated  by  the  special  taxes  paid  is  not  known. 

OXFORD    COUNTY. 

Oxford  County  is  by  many  regarded  as  the  most  encour- 
aging field  for  the  study  of  the  benefits  of  prohibition.  Its 
remoteness  from  the  great  highways  of  commerce,  its  homo- 
geneous population,  and  almost  exclusively  agricultural 
pursuits  offer  exceptional  facilities  for  the  enforcement  of 
prohibitory  laws.  Except  in  the  new  manufacturing  village 
of  Rumford  Falls,  comparatively  few  United  States  licenses 
were  paid  in  the  county  in  1894-95.  From  memoranda 
furnished  by  persons  in  the  trade,  it  appears  that  liquor  is 
sold  in  the  following  towns  which  in  1893  were  without 
United  States  liquor  tax  payers.  In  Paris  (population 
3,156,  with  4  villages)  at  three  places ;  in  Fryeburg  (pop- 
ulation 1,418,  with  6  post-oliices)  at  three  places;  in  An- 
dover  (population  740)  at  two ;  in  Bryant's  Pond  (in  the 
town  of  Woodstock,  with  a  population  of  859)  at  one ;  in 
Oxford  (population  1,455)  at  one. 

The  13  towns  in  which  it  is  known  that  the  liquor  traffic 
still  exists  contain  15,873  inhabitants  as  against  14,713  in 
the  22  towns  and  4  plantations  where,  so  far  as  can  be  as- 
certained, the  law  is  obeyed.  In  some  of  the  many  towns 
bordering  on  New  Hampshire  the  opportunity  for  bringing 
liquors  into  the  State  is  unusually  good ;  but  notwithstand- 
ing the  many  assertions  to  the  contrary,  there  seems  no  valid 
reason  to  believe  that  it  is  habitually  used  on  a  large  scale. 

PENOBSCOT    COUNTY. 

Every  effort  to  induce  or  force  obedience  to  the  liquor 
laws  in  Penobscot  County  has  met  an  imrelenting  and,  in 
the  end,  victorious  opposition,  which  has  not  restricted  its 
operations  to  the  populous  centres  only.  The  city  of  Ban- 
gor, however,  and  other  large  places  determine  the  issues 


78  PKOHIBITION   IN    MAINE   AND    ITS   RESULTS. 

for  the  rest  of  the  county,  and  therefore  these  require  special 
consideration.  Bangor,  a  seaport  of  some  magnitude,  with 
a  large  lumber  industry  but  no  other  manufacturing  inter- 
ests of  importance,  had  in  1890  a  population  of  19,103,  of 
which  3,471  were  foreign-born,  generally  from  the  provinces. 
During  the  season  for  lumber-drives,  the  floating  population 
is  greatly  augmented  by  men  of  the  drinking  class.  It  is 
not  recorded  that  the  local  officials  have  expended  much 
energy  for  any  length  of  time  in  efforts  to  stamp  out  the 
traffic.  The  sure  reward  of  such  action  would  be  defeat  at 
the  polls  or  failure  of  reappointment.  In  the  seventies,  a 
county  sheriff  fought  the  liquor  element  persistently  with 
every  means  in  his  power.  The  trade  was  temporarily 
driven  into  dark  places  and  partly  crippled,  but  drink-selling 
still  flourished,  and  with  it  intemperance.  This  officer  is 
reported  to  have  said  that  nothing  could  induce  him  again 
to  pass  through  such  an  ordeal.  Later  attempts  at  enforce- 
ment by  means  of  special  officers  appointed  by  the  governor 
were  attended  by  similar  results.  One  of  these  officers  has 
declared  that  he  found  the  municipal  officials  and  the  public 
arrayed  against  him,  and  soon  relinquished  the  odious  task. 
The  number  of  United  States  special  liquor  taxes  paid  by 
residents  of  Bangor  in  1894-95  was  146,  including  those 
for  a  wholesale  business. 

A  police  official  estimated  the  number  of  regular  liquor- 
shops  at  150,  to  which  must  be  added  about  40  kitchen 
bars.  If  the  total  be  only  185,  this  gives  one  liquor-shop 
to  about  100  inhabitants  —  an  indication  that  the  liquor 
business  is  overdone.  Many  engaged  in  it  find  it  difficult 
to  eke  out  a  subsistence  and  collect  the  sums  needed  to  pay 
the  periodically  recurring  fines.  Liquor  agents  complain 
that  "  collections  are  hard  "  in  Bangor.  The  saloons  are, 
of  course,  run  openly  without  any  attempt  at  disguise. 
Many  are  on  the  principal  thoroughfares,  and  the  operations 
at  the  bars  may  often  be  viewed  from  the  sidewalk.      Ex- 


PENOBSCOT   COUNTY.  79 

cept  for  the  absence  of  gilded  signs  and  the  usual  show 
window,  there  is  little  to  distinguish  them  from  saloons  in 
license  cities.  The  ordinary  saloons  are  naturally  subjected 
to  certain  police  regulations  ;  thus  they  are  required  to  close 
at  ten  p.  m.,  to  refrain  from  Sunday  selling,  and  otherwise 
to  observe  general  decorum.  So  long  as  they  do  this,  per- 
fect immunity  can  be  relied  upon.  The  owners  are  occa- 
sionally reminded  of  the  fact  that  they  are  lawbreakers  by 
notices  to  appear  in  court  and  pay  fines  ;  these,  however,  are 
levied  with  no  thought  of  enforcement,  but  simply  to  meet 
county  expenses.  But  for  this  one  circumstance,  no  greater 
odium  would  attach  to  the  liquor  traffic  in  Bangor  than  in 
any  other  city.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  public,  as  well  as 
the  dealers  themselves,  have  grown  so  accustomed  to  the  pay- 
ment of  fines  that  it  is -regarded  merely  as  a  business  incident. 
In  certain  respects  the  saloons  in  Bangor  present  a  sharp 
contrast  to  those  in  Portland.  They  are  more  orderly,  do 
not  tolerate  the  presence  of  minors  or  children,  and  are  not 
such  perpetual  abodes  of  the  vicious.  In  general  they  con- 
form pretty  well  to  the  police  regulations.  Notwithstand- 
ing all  that  has  been  said,  the  police  are  still  much  occupied 
with  violations  of  the  liquor  laws.  In  1893,  for  instance, 
the  arrests  on  the  search  and  seizure  warrants  numbered 
sixty -five  —  or  more,  proportionately,  than  in  some  cities 
where  the  police  are  supposed  to  carry  on  war  against  all 
who  sell  liquor.  This  unexpected  activity  can  easily  be 
accounted  for.  The  numerous  kitchen  bars  are  the  most 
disorderly,  and  sell  "  after  hours  "  and  on  Sundays.  For 
such  off'enses  they  are  raided,  the  liquor  confiscated,  and 
the  owners  taken  before  the  courts.  Not  infrequently 
some  of  the  regular  dealers  come  under  the  ban,  and  are 
similarly  dealt  with.  Diligent  search  for  any  evidence 
showing  that  the  police  in  Bangor  extort  money  for  pro- 
tection of  the  Illicit  trafiic  resulted  in  the  conviction  that 
they  do  not,  nor  can   political  bribery  well  be  resorted  to. 


80 


PROHIBITION    IN    MAINE    AND    ITS    RESULTS. 


A  candidate  openly  pledged  to  enforcement  would  not  be 
considered  eligible. 

Were  it  necessary  to  dwell  furtber  on  tbe  unique  posi- 
tion held  by  the  bars  in  this  city,  outlawed  though  they  be, 
it  is  enough  to  say  that  they  cater  to  the  very  element  in 
the  community  whose  active  support  is  a  conditio  sine  qua 
non  of  their  suppression.  While  some  of  the  evils  con- 
nected with  non-enforcement  are  less  glaring  than  in  Port- 
land and  other  cities  in  the  State,  the  demoralizing  effect  of 
the  toleration  of  open  rebellion  against  the  law  is  obvious. 
That  the  operations  of  so  many  saloons  cause  much  drunk- 
enness is  unavoidable.  But  the  actual  amount  of  it,  as 
compared  with  other  places,  remains  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
The  statistics  indicate  an  unusually  high  rate  of  arrests. 
In  1884  they  were  19.2  per  1,000  inhabitants;  1885,  41.3; 
1886,  44.6 ;  1887,  47.4  ;  1888,  48.1 ;  1889,  48.4 ;  1890, 
49.4 ;  1891,  53.4 ;  1892,  48.4  ;  1893,  64.0.  During  the 
months  of  log-driving  the  number  of  arrests  takes  a  sudden 
upward  leap.  Men  thus  employed,  coming  to  the  city 
from  certain  provinces,  are  almost  without  exception  heavy 
drinkers.  So  far  as  could  be  observed,  there  was  not  so 
much  public  intoxication  in  Bangor  as  in  Portland. 

Since  all  the  apothecary  shops  sell  liquor,  some  of  them 
by  the  glass,  the  need  of  a  liquor  agency  in  Bangor  is  not 
quite  apparent,  except  it  may  be  that  a  number  of  persons 
with  strong  principles  refuse  to  purchase  from  shops  not 
legalized.  Prom  the  appended  figures  showing  the  trans- 
actions of  the  agency  for  a  number  of  years,  it  is  a  safe 
conclusion  that  it  in  part  occupies  the  same  field  as  the  non- 
legalized  liquor-shop. 


SALES    OF    THE    BANGOR    LIQUOR    AGENCY. 


Tear. 

1884 
188.5 
1886 
1887 
1888 


Amount. 

$9,021.80 

7,404.42 

8,427.47 

12,-384.1.5 

1.5,563.61 


Year. 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 


Amount. 

114,600.43 
.  1,5,734.66 
.   10,498.79  (10  mos.) 
.   12,713.71 
.  13,169.93 


PISCATAQUIS   COUNTY.  81 

Other  cities  in  the  county  follow  the  example  of  Bangor 
in  their  manner  of  dealing  with  the  liquor  traffic.  In 
Brewer,  just  across  the  river,  7  United  States  liquor  tax 
payers  were  found  in  1893;  Orono,  7  miles  north,  with 
only  2,790  inhabitants,  had  6.  The  city  of  Oldtown,  12 
miles  from  Bangor,  counted  26.  But  it  must  not  be  in- 
ferred that  these  places  allow  liquor-selling  to  go  on  un- 
checked at  all  times.  For  instance,  in  Oldtown  the  traffic 
was  carried  on  at  about  40  places,  counting  the  kitchen  bars, 
until  the  last  of  February,  1894.  The  mayor  then  coming 
into  office  had  been  elected  to  enforce  the  prohibitory  law. 
By  persistent  effort  he  closed  the  bars,  and  at  the  time  of 
this  investigation  it  was  said  that  very  little  liquor  was  sold. 
As  a  lumber  city  Oldtown  is  frequented  by  large  numbers 
of  the  drinking  class,  who  greatly  increase  the  difficulties  of 
enforcement. 

Of  the  sixty-two  cities,  towns,  and  plantations  in  the 
county,  liquor  is  sold,  according  to  the  United  States  Rev- 
enue Records  of  1894,  in  twenty-five,  which  include  all  the 
principal  centres  and  contain  48,970  inhabitants,  or  67  per 
cent,  of  the  whole.  Presumably  the  illicit  traffic  is  even 
more  extensive.  Not  every  individual  who  sells  pays  the 
United  States  special  tax.  As  we  already  know,  other  coun- 
ties influenced  by  the  example  of  Penobscot  have  adopted 
the  same  methods  of  evading  the  law.  No  severer  blow 
has  been  dealt  prohibition  than  the  methods  successfully 
pursued  by  the  city  of  Bangor. 

PISCATAQUIS    COUNTY. 

Only  the  southern  portion  of  the  large  tract  (3,780  square 
miles)  embraced  in  Piscataquis  County  can  be  regarded  as 
settled.  The  existence  of  United  States  special  tax  payers 
in  no  less  than  four  of  the  unorganized  places  indicates  a 
wider  violation  of  the  law  than  local  statistics  show,  espe- 
cially in  the  lumber  regions.     It  is  only  proper  to  say  that 


82  PROHIBITION    IN   MAINE    AND   ITS   KESULTS. 

the  many  sportsmen  and  summer  visitors  who  frequent  the 
county  help  to  reduce  the  effectiveness  of  the  prohibitory 
law.  About  one  eighth  of  the  population  are  foreign-born 
or  of  foreign  parentage. 

SAGADAHOC    COUNTY. 

Scarcely  any  part  of  the  small  county  of  Sagadahoc  is 
free  from  the  liquor  traffic.  In  the  city  of  Bath,  which 
contains  nearly  one  half  of  the  tofal  population,  the  sale 
was  for  many  years  practically  unrestricted  until  the  month 
of  June,  1894.  The  sheriff's  officers  persistently  refused  to 
meddle  with  the  Ijquor  element,  because  they  said  that  this 
duty  properly  belonged  to  the  city  police  and  the  mayor. 
But  in  1894,  after  a  good  deal  of  pressure  upon  the  mayor, 
two  special  liquor  officers  were  appointed.  They  began 
their  duties  by  notifying  seventy-two  dealers,  owners  of 
common  saloons,  hotels,  apothecary  shops,  kitchen  bars,  and 
eating-houses,  to  cease  selling.  Many  obeyed  the  order, 
saying,  however,  "  We  are  waiting  till  the  storm  blows 
over,"  or,  "  till  we  can  make  a  deal."  Others  continued, 
some  selling  only  beer  because  they  feared  a  seizure  of  the 
more  costly  liquors ;  others  selling  only  distilled  spirits  be- 
cause of  their  smaller  bulk.  About  forty  places  were  still 
doing  business  some  weeks  after  the  new  period  of  enforce- 
ment set  in,  but  more  secretly  than  before.  The  largest 
number  of  saloons  in  operation  were  found  in  the  poorer 
sections  along  the  water-front.  The  apathy  of  the  police 
can  be  explained  only  on  the  ground  that  the  traffic  is  not 
unprofitable  to  them.  This  is  the  general  understanding. 
They  manifested  their  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  new  re- 
gime, it  is  alleged,  by  making  fewer  arrests,  although  visi- 
ble drunkenness  increased  when  enforcement  was  decreed. 
With  nearly  the  same  number  of  inhabitants  to  each  place 
where  liquor  is  sold,  one  would  naturally  expect  as  high  a 
percentage  of  arrests  in  Bath  as  in  Bangor.     But  this  is  far 


SOMERSET   AND   WALDO   COUNTIES.  83 

from  being  the  case,  as  the  following  figures  show  :  Arrests 
in  1884,  19.9  per  1,000  inhabitants;  in  1885,  17.8;  1886, 
14.0;  1887,  18.7;  1888,  21.7;  3889,  23.9;  1890,  22.9; 
1891,  19.4 ;  1892,  21.4  ;  1893,  20.4.  The  remarkable  dis- 
crepancy may  be  partly  attributable  to  the  large  floating 
population  of  Bangor,  and  partly  to  the  lax  police  methods 
in  Bath. 

SOMERSET    COUNTY. 

The  prohibitory  law  is  enforced  in  Somerset  County  after 
the  Penobscot  model.  With  regard  to  Skowhegan,  the 
number  of  United  States  special  tax  payers  (12  in  1894— 
95)  does  not  represent  the  extent  of  the  traffic.  The  low- 
est estimate  fixes  the  present  number  of  dramshops  at 
twenty-five.  Skowhegan  has  a  large  French  Canadian  pop- 
ulation. The  officials  show  no  disposition  to  enforce  the 
law  except  for  the  sake  of  collecting  fines  to  pay  county 
expenses.  The  relation  of  the  police  to  the  lawbreakers  is 
said  to  be  the  same  as  noted  in  other  cities.  The  town  of 
Fairfield,  two  miles  from  Waterville,  has  six  post-offices 
and  ten  United  States  liquor  tax  payers.  In  the  village 
proper  six  ordinary  bars  were  counted.  Numerous  kitchen 
bars  are  said  to  exist  in  the  quarters  along  the  river  bank 
populated  by  French  Canadians.  In  the  plantations  liquor 
is  sold  with  even  more  freedom  than  in  the  towns.  In 
Jackmantown,  for  instance,  there  was  in  1893  one  special 
tax  payer  to  fifty-four  inhabitants ;  Sandy  Bay  had  one  to 
thirty-one  inhabitants.  For  the  whole  county,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  liquor  law  is  inoperative.  The  places  where 
liquor  is  sold  contain  21,629  inhabitants,  or  66  per  cent,  of 
the  total  population. 

WALDO    COUNTY. 

Waldo  County  is  one  of  the  several  counties  which  show 
a  distinct  decrease  in  population.  Outside  the  city  of  Bel- 
fast there  are   few   United  States  special  tax  payers.     In 


84  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS  RESULTS. 

Belfast  there  is  one. liquor  tax  payer  to  about  481  inhabit- 
ants. The  city  is  noted  for  its  numerous  sarsaparilla  fac- 
tories. Much  of  the  "  medicine  "  contains  sufficient  alcohol 
to  produce  drunkenness,  and  is  habitually  used  in  remote 
districts  as  a  stimulant.  Indeed,  in  many  parts  of  the  State 
various  preparations  sold  under  such  names  as  "  Morning 
Glory  Bitters,"  "  Beef,  Wine,  and  Iron,"  and  various  kinds 
of  "  Sarsaparilla  "  have  alcohol  as  the  principal  ingredient, 
and  are  used  as  a  substitute  for  whiskey.  On  the  whole  it 
cannot  be  said  that  the  liquor  law  is  vigorously  enforced  in 
this  county. 

WASHINGTON    COUNTY. 

In  response  to  inquiries  relative  to  the  workings  of  the 
prohibitory  law  in  Eastport,  the  following  was  received 
from  a  well-known  attorney  :  "  The  law  is  not  strictly  or 
constantly  enforced.  I  think  drunkenness  may  have  l)een 
on  the  decrease  during  the  past  ten  years.  Kitchen  bars, 
closed  bars,  and  places  where  liquor  is  served  in  one  form 
and  another  number  possibly  from  forty  to  fifty.  There 
may  be  some  reason  to  believe  that  liquor-dealers  have  paid 
officials  for  protection,  but  the  proof  is  wanting  ;  it  is  a  fact 
that  danger  signals  are  displayed  Avhen  any  squall  of  en- 
forcement approaches  this  section."  Another  gentleman 
equally  well  known,  while  stating  that  the  law  is  not  con- 
tinually or  strictly  enforced,  does  not  admit  that  there  are 
any  places  where  liquor  is  sold.  Yet  in  1894-95  twenty- 
two  United  States  special  liquor  taxes  were  paid  by  resi- 
dents of  Eastport,  or  one  to  224  inhabitants.  The  town  of 
Brookton  has  an  unusual  number  of  special  tax  payers  in 
proportion  to  its  size.  In  the  towns  along  the  Canadian 
border  liquor  is  smuggled,  for  the  remoteness  of  many  of 
the  towns  and  the  imperfect  means  of  communication 
render  a  vigilant  enforcement  of  the  law  impossible. 


YORK   COUNTY.  85 

YORK    COUNTY. 

In  York  County  the  enforcement  of.  the  prohibitory  law 
is  difficult.  There  are  a  number  of  popular  seaside  resorts  ; 
two  cities  and  one  town  with  large  manufacturing  interests, 
employing  thousands  of  persons  not  natives  ;  and  seven 
towns  bordering  on  New  Hampshire.  Of  the  9,965  persons 
of  foreign  birth  in  the  whole  county,  not  less  than  6,290 
are  found  in  the  city  of  Biddeford  alone.  But  however 
little  sympathy  with  prohibitory  legislation  is  displayed  by 
them,  they  cannot  bear  the  Avhole  responsibility  for  the 
liquor  traffic  in  this  city. 

What  has  been  said  relative  to  the  conditions  under 
which  the  illicit  traffic  is  carried  on  in  Portland,  and  the 
various  results  observed,  applies  with  equal  force  to  Bidde- 
ford. It  is  stated  that  there  is  always  more  intoxication 
visible  in  the  streets  during  a  time  of  so-called  enforcement, 
since  malt  liquors  are  then  not  so  easily  obtained,  and 
many  have  to  content  themselves  with  ''  split." 

The  city  of  Saco  bears  the  same  geographical  relation  to 
Biddeford  as  Auburn  to  Lewiston,  yet  is  by  no  means  free 
from  liqiior-selling. 

At  Old  Orchard  the  law  is  grossly  violated,  especially 
during  the  summer  season.  Much  gambling  is  said  to  be 
connected  Avith  the  illegal  sale.  Within  a  year  the  number 
of  persons  paying  the  United  States  special  tax  has  in- 
creased from  thirteen  to  eighteen.  Among  others,  a  whole- 
sale liquor-dealer  from  Boston  has  embarked  in  the  "  drug 
business." 

In  Sanford  the  operatives  employed  in  the  large  plush 
mills,  who  are  nearly  all  of  foreign  extraction,  are  said  to 
oppose  every  attempt  at  enforcing  the  law. 

The  places  in  the  county  in  which  liquor  is  sold,  as 
shown  by  United  States  special  tax  payments,  contain 
35,717  inhabitants,  or  56  per  cent,  of  the  total  population. 


86  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

GENERAL    SUMMARY. 

According  to  the  special  United  States  tax  payments  the 
liquor  traffic  exists  in  eighty-seven  places  in  Maine,  contain- 
ing 407,925  of  the  661,086  inhabitants  of  the  State,  or 
about  61  per  cent.  It  may  be  said  that  the  mere  existence 
of  one  liquor  tax  payer  in  a  town  of,  say,  nearly  2,000  in- 
habitants, scattered  over  thousands  of  acres,  does  not  prove 
that  most  of  the  towns  do  not  enjoy  the  advantages  of  a 
generally  enforced  prohibitory  law.  The  ready  answer  to 
this  is  that  by  no  means  do  all  dealers  pay  the  United 
States  tax.  An  ex-deputy  collector  of  internal  revenue 
states  that  in  1890,  956  persons  paid  this  tax  in  Maine, 
and  adds,  "  but  I  have  always  figured  that  there  were  500 
more  who  ought  to  have  paid,  but  who  did  not."  At 
every  session  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  says  the 
presiding  judge,  from  eight  to  ten  cases  are  tried  for  viola- 
tion of  the  United  States  revenue  law  ;  that  is,  for  failure 
to  pay  the  special  tax.  The  stricter  tlie  enforcement  of 
the  law,  the  less  willing  are  the  dealers  to  pay  the  tax,  and 
thus  furnish  evidence  against  themselves.  A  falling  off  in 
the  number  of  special  liquor  tax  payers  does  not  therefore 
necessarily  indicate  a  proportional  decrease  of  the  traffic. 
Furthermore  it  should  be  remembered  that  many  towns 
without  special  tax  payers  are  adjacent  to  liquor  centres,  so 
that  the  law  puts  not  the  slightest  barrier  to  obtaining 
liquor. 

Without  considering  the  activity  of  express  companies 
and  other  carriers,  it  remains  a  conservative  statement, 
however  unwelcome  it  may  be,  that  more  than  two  thirds 
of  the  population  of  Maine  are  not  living  under  an  enforced 
prohibitory  law,  and  that  more  than  one  half  live  in  towns 
and  cities  where  the  liquor  traffic  is  practically  unrestricted, 
so  far  as  the  opportunity  for  procuring  drink  is  concerned. 

What  has  been  said  about  the  prevalence  of  liquor-selling 


GENERAL   SUMMARY.  87 

in  Maine  to-day  would  have  held  true  years  ago.  Statistics 
compiled  from  the  reports  of  the  Commissioners  of  Internal 
Revenue  show  that,  in  proportion  to  the  population,  the 
dealers  were  numerically  about  as  strong  in  1881  as  in 
1894.  The  increase  of  special  tax  payers  beginning  with 
1879  is  probably  due  to  a  better  organized  revenue  service 
rather  than  to  the  general  neglect  of  state  officials  in  enfor- 
cing the  law.  The  enthusiastic  sentiment  in  response  to 
which  prohibition  was  made  constitutional  in  1884  did  not 
have  the  force  to  deter  more  than  one  thousand  men  from 
defying  the  Constitution  by  paying  the  annual  liquor  tax 
to  the  United  States  government.  No  better  success  at- 
tended the  act  of  1887,  which  made  the  payment  of  the  spe- 
cial tax  prima  facie  evidence  of  intent  to  violate  the  law. 
Direct  evidence  of  the  considerable  proportions  of  the  liquor 
trade  in  Maine  is  found  in  the  large  number  of  men  who,  in 
violation  of  law,  travel  about  soliciting  orders  for  wholesale 
houses.  In  addition  to  the  agents  of  local  firms,  there  are 
between  thirty  and  forty  representing  liquor  houses  in  Boston, 
New  York,  and  Western  cities.  They  are  found  everywhere, 
even  seeking  customers  in  remote  towns  with  a  sparse  popu- 
lation. Many  of  them  are  permanent  residents,  nor  are  they 
inimical  to  the  prohibitory  law  as  now  enforced. 

Both  the  extent  of  the  traffic  in  Maine  and  the  difficulty 
of  enforcing  prohibition  are  made  evident  by  the  following 
totals  of  prosecutions  in  the  several  counties,  compiled 
from  the  returns  of  the  attorney -general.  Still,  these  rep- 
resent but  a  part  of  the  liquor  cases  annually  tried,  and 
the  immense  legal  machinery  put  in  operation  to  secure 
obedience  to  this  one  law.  Only  the  cases  coming  up 
before  the  superior  courts  and  justices  of  the  supreme 
court  on  circuit  are  included  in  these  totals.  I>ut  in  many 
instances,  as  we  know,  cases  are  tried  and  settled  before 
municipal  judges  or  trial  justices,  and  consequently  do  not 
appear  in  the  returns  for  the  whole  State. 


88  PROHIBITION   IN    MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

NUMBER  OF  PROSECUTIONS  IN  THE  STATE  INSTITUTED 
BEFORE  THE  SUPREME  JUDICIAL  AND  SUPERIOR 
COURTS,  AND  PROPORTION  OF  CASES  FOR  VIOLATION 
OF    THE    LIQUOR    LAWS,    1877-1894. 


Years. 

Whole  Number. 

Liquor  Cases. 

1877 

3,473 

2,010 

1878 

1,2.50 

676 

1879 

942 

475 

1880 

963 

496 

1881 

1,200 

765 

1882 

1,173 

785 

1883 

1,343 

789 

1884 

1,445 

982 

188.5 

1,409 

945 

1886 

1,107 

732 

1887 

No  reports. 

- 

1888 

No  reports. 

- 

1889 

1,231 

819 

1890 

1,132 

726 

1891 

1,103 

819 

1892 

1,.569 

1,156 

1893 

2,092 

1,327 

1894 

2,294 

1,444 

A  reading  of  this  table  leads  directly  to  two  conclusions : 
(1)  That  but  for  the  liquor  cases  the  criminal  docket  in 
Maine  would  be  reduced  to  less  than  one  half  of  its  present 
proportions ;  and  (2)  that  the  legal  forces  employed  are 
not  sufficient  to  stop  liquor-selling.  The  first  year  given 
shows  the  greatest  number  of  prosecutions,  but  it  is  by  no 
means  clear  that  the  efi'ect  was  to  administer  even  a  tem- 
porary check  to  the  illicit  traffic.  Penobscot  County  was 
the  chief  offender  in  that  year.  One  searches  vainly  through 
the  statistics  in  detail  for  any  evidence  to  show  that  bring- 
ing offenders  against  the  liquor  laws  to  justice  has  materi- 
ally lessened  tlieir  number  in  a  single  county.  It  should 
again  be  remarked  that  the  number  of  cases  do  not,  in  all 


GENERAL   SUMMARY.  89 

instances,  represent  so  many  individuals.     One  person  may 
often  be  tried  on  two  or  more  indictments.^ 

The  next  table,  also  compiled  from  the  records  of  the 
attorney-general,  should  be  read  in  connection  with  the 
foregoing.  The  sentences  imposed  by  municipal  courts  and 
trial  justices,  and  not  appealed  from,  do  not  appear  in  the 
figures.  Still,  the  majority  of  offenses  are  tried  on  indict- 
ment, or  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts, 
so  that  most  of  the  sentences  imposed  find  a  place  in  the 
returns. 

NUMBER    OF    THE    PERSONS     SENTENCED,    AND     THE     PRO- 
PORTION   SENTENCED    FOR  VIOLATION    OF    THE    LIQUOR 

LAW,  1882-1894. 

For  Violating 

Years.  Whole  Number.  Liquor  Law. 

1882  538  39G 

1883  654  447 

1884  670  492 

1885  618  428 

1886  553  364 

1887  No  reports. 

1888  No  reports. 

1889  519  323 

1890  589  366 

1891  584  380 

1892  675  522 

1893  894  696 

1894  1,037  714 

1  The  following  is  from  an  editorial  article  in  the  Portland  Argus  of 
June  28,  1895  :  — 

"At  the  INIay  term  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  for  York  County, 
Clerk  Hervey  reports  the  '  disposition '  of  sixty  indictments  for  liquor- 
selling.  In  these  sixty  cases  just  six  convictions  were  made,  and  fines  of 
a  hundred  dollars  and  costs  imposed.  In  twenty-four  cases  'nol  pros.' 
was  entered  on  the  docket.  Twenty-four  other  cases  were  'continued,' 
and  some  'filed.'  In  six  cases  action  was  discontinued  because  the  wit- 
nesses are  dead.  In  at  least  two  cases  occurs  the  entry  '  no  such  person  ' 
against  the  name  of  the  party  accused.  We  fancy  that  the  York  County 
record  is  not  singular  ;  and  that  in  other  counties  in  Maine  cases  liave 
been  continued  until  the  witnesses  have  died,  —  perhaps  of  old  age." 


90  PROHIBITION    IN    MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

The  number  of  individuals  sentenced  is  of  course  much 
less  than  would  seem  from  the  figures,  each  person  being 
counted  once  for  every  sentence  imposed  on  him.  During 
one  year  a  person  in  Cumberland  County  Avas  convicted  on 
thirteen  counts  for  violation  of  the  liquor  law^s,  and  was 
sentenced  that  number  of  times.  This  was  a  rare  exception, 
but  it  frequently  happens  that  the  name  of  the  same  indi- 
vidual is  counted  three  times  in  one  year,  except  in  the 
counties  where  the  law  is  hardly  enforced  at  all,  or  for  rev- 
enue only. 

A  comparison  of  the  number  of  sentences  imposed  and 
the  number  of  liquor  cases  tried  is  interesting.  Taking  the 
last  four  years,  it  is  found  that  of  819  cases  tried  in  1891 
sentence  was  imposed  in  only  380,  or  46  per  cent.  ;  in  1892, 
1,159  cases,  and  522  sentences,  or  45  per  cent.  ;  in  1893, 
1,327  cases  and  696  sentences,  or  52  per  cent. ;  in  1894, 
1,444  cases  and  714  sentences,  or  49  per  cent. 

There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  courts  deal  with 
liquor  cases  otherwise  than  on  their  merits.  The  discrep- 
ancy between  the  number  of  persons  brought  to  trial  and 
the  number  finally  convicted  must  therefore  be  explained  on 
general  grounds,  although  it  seems  natural,  as  has  commonly 
been  asserted,  that  juries  are  not  so  willing  to  bring  in  a 
verdict  of  guilty  in  liquor  cases  as  in  others. 

With  regard  to  the  penalties  imposed,  a  great  variety  is 
observed  in  the  diiferent  counties.  Taking  only  the  year 
1892,  when  the  law  still  deprived  the  courts  of  all  discre- 
tion in  liquor  cases,  most  of  the  persons  convicted  in  An- 
droscoggin County  were  fined  from  $25  to  $200,  or  impris- 
oned from  one  to  six  months.  In  Cumberland  County  the 
fines  ranged  from  $11.99  to  $830.48,  the  majority  exceed- 
ing $200.  Most  of  the  indictments  were  made  under  the 
nuisance  act,  and  thus  the  necessity  of  imposing  imprison- 
ment in  addition  to  the  fine  was  obviated.  In  Kennebec 
County  fines  running  considerably  lower  than  in  Cumber- 


GENERAL   SUMMARY.  91 

land  were  the  common  punishment.  In  Knox  County  the 
nuisance  act  was  taken  advantage  of,  and  the  average  fine 
placed  at  $110.  The  same  was  true  of  Penobscot,  Wash- 
ington, York,  and  some  other  counties.  Only  in  Hancock 
were  the  dealers  made  to  suffer  both  fine  and  imprisonment. 
At  present  imprisonment  is  rarely  resorted  to  in  any  county 
except  in  default  of  payment  of  fines  and  costs.  A  dispo- 
sition unfavorable  to  imposing  the  severest  penalties  of  the 
law  is  thus  manifest.  In  Maine  the  rule  has  been,  the 
more  unrelenting  the  liquor  law,  the  fewer  convictions 
under  it.  Except  in  Cumberland  County,  relatively  few 
dealers  have  gone  to  jail  from  inability  to  pay  fines.  Not 
infrequently  wholesale  dealers  in  Boston  and  elsewhere 
help  them  out  or  aid  in  defraying  the  expenses  of  litigation. 
The  state  liquor  commissioner  holds  a  peculiar  position 
in  the  prohibitive  community,  and  the  ofiice  is  an  important 
part  of  the  institutions  which  have  grown  up  under  the 
prohibition  law.  The  law  requires  that  he  shall  make  an- 
nual returns  of  his  business  to  the  governor  and  council, 
and  that  they  shall  be  published  in  the  newspapers.  As  a 
rule,  very  incomplete  statements  were  handed  in,  reporting 
the  quantities  of  liquor  of  various  kinds  sold  to  the  differ- 
ent agencies  and  the  total  sum  received  for  them,  witliout 
further  details.  Sometimes  no  statement  was  made,  as  in 
1889  and  1892,  and  only  on  rare  occasions  were  his  reports 
published  —  for  thirteen  years  only  once.  The  office  is  one 
of  the  greatest  if  not  the  greatest  "  plum  "  in  the  State. 
It  is  understood  to  be  worth  from  $8,000  to  $10,000  a 
year.  By  those  in  the  liquor  business  it  is  "  rated  "  much 
higher  than  these  figures.  It  is  a  part  of  the  political  ma- 
chine, and  its  occupant  must  contribute  liberally  to  the 
campaign  funds.  Formerly  the  commissioner  was  allowed 
a  percentage  on  tlie  sales,  but  now  he  receives  a  salary  and 
must  pay  a  seven  per  cent,  commission  to  the  State.  A 
few  words  are  necessary  to  explain  how,  in  spite  of  this 


92  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND    ITS    RESULTS. 

arrangement,  the  office  became  such  a  rich  reward  for  polit- 
ical service.  On  being  appointed  to  the  place  the  commis- 
sioner asked  for  offers  to  supply  liquors.  Agents  for  vari- 
ous liquor  houses  made  their  bids,  promising  him  a  certain 
percentage  for  the  privilege  of  supplying  the  state  liquor. 

One  cannot  in  reason  expect  that  the  liquor  supplied  by 
the  state  agent  should  be  either  pure  or  cheap,  nor  can  it 
be  wondered  at  that  unsavory  practices  are  in  vogue  among 
city  and  town  agents  also.  To  cite  a  single  example  :  one 
city  agency  sold  a  brand  of  whiskey  at  $4.50  per  gallon,  of 
which  the  original  cost  was  $1.80 ;  of  the  $4.50,  $1  was 
given  to  the  Democratic  City  Committee,  $1  to  the  "  drum- 
mer "  who  had  sold  the  liquor,  and  the  remainder  was  taken 
care  of  by  the  local  agent. 

The  office  of  liquor  commissioner  has  been  made  the  sub- 
ject of  legislative  action  forced  by  the  scandals  connected 
with  it.  A  semiannual  auditing  of  the  commissioner's  ac- 
counts by  a  committee  composed  of  members  of  the  gov- 
ernor's council  is  now  required,  as  well  as  inspection  and 
analysis  of  all  liquors  furnished  for  the  State.  The  new  act 
leaves  the  supervision  of  the  affairs  of  the  commissioner  to 
the  same  body  of  men  who  were  formerly  charged  with  it. 
On  the  petition  of  "  ten  or  more  well-known  tax-payers  "  a 
town  liquor  agency  may  be  closed  if  its  affairs  be  found  to 
be  conducted  in  violation  of  the  law. 

An  idea  of  the  magnitude  and  growth  of  the  state  liquor 
"  business "  may  be  obtained  from  the  following  tables. 
Reports  for  1889  and  1892  have  not  been  made. 

Malt  liquor  and  wines  are  not  included,  and  they  do  not 
enter  largely  into  the  sales. 


GENERAL  SUMMARY. 


93 


TRANSACTIONS     OF    THE     STATE     LIQUOR     COMMISSIONER. 


Years. 

Quantity  of  Liquor  Sold. 

Value. 

Gallons. 

Dozen  Pints. 

1887 
1888 
1890 
1891 
1893 

8,651 
30,226.44 
30,106 
21,892 
34,348.80 

66 
299 

277 
179 
697 

$19,872.40 
75,91.5.24 
76,388.59 
57,974.65 1 

130,812.29 

KINDS     AND    QUANTITY     OF    LIQUOR     SUPPLIED     BY     THE 
STATE    COMMISSIONER    TO    THE    AGENCIES    AT 


Portland. 

BiDDEFORD. 

Leaviston. 

Years. 

Whiskey. 
(Galls.) 

Rum. 
(Galls.) 

Whiskey. 
(Galls.) 

Rum. 
(Galls.) 

Whiskey. 
(Galls.) 

Rum. 

(Galls.) 

1887 

792 

938 

690 

316 

131 

173 

1888 

222 

3320 

1890 

885 

397 

184 

1890 

2337 

1472 

1599 

648 

1230 

801 

1891 

2628 

1406 

2076 

657 

3592 

259 

1892 

7586 

5981 

4145 

1297 

1104 

325 

While  much  alcohol  is  purchased  in  Maine  for  use  in  pre- 
paring intoxicating  drinks,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
most  of  the  alcohol  sold  through  the  agencies  is  used  for 
mechanical  and  medicinal  purposes ;  not  so  with  whiskey 
and  rum. 

By  the  second  table  it  appears  that  not  far  from  two 
quarts  of  whiskey  and  rum  per  capita  of  the  population  in 
Portland  was  furnished  by  the  state  agent  in  1893. 

1  During  seven  months  of  the  year.    The  total  sales  for  1891  represent 
S;99,815. 


94  PROHIBITION   IN   MAINE   AND   ITS   RESULTS. 

How  far  prohibition  has  fostered  sobriety  in  Maine  must 
be  inferred  from  the  manner  of  its  enforcement  and  the  ex- 
tent of  the  illicit  traffic.  The  question  is  at  bottom  one  of 
consumption,  not  whence  come  the  supplies,  and  how  they 
are  delivered  to  the  customer ;  but  data  of  consumption  are 
unattainable,  although  positive  statements  relative  to  its 
amount  are  as  frequent  as  they  are  untrustworthy.  Fur- 
thermore, in  measuring  the  benefits  of  prohibition,  a  com- 
pletely unregulated  traffic  cannot  be  taken  as  a  standard  of 
comparison.  Neither  can  it  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 
good  results  of  a  prohibitory  regime  in  semi-rural  communi- 
ties are  due  to  prohibitory  legislation.  In  Massachiisetts, 
for  instance,  the  number  of  towns  outlawing  the  saloon, 
previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  local  option  law,  far  ex- 
ceeded the  number  of  towns  in  Maine  where,  at  the  same 
time,  prohibition  Avas  partially  enforced.  And  there  are 
other  considerations  to  be  weighed  carefully. 

The  fact  that  prohibition  has  so  long  had  a  place  on  the 
statute  books,  and  latterly  in  the  Constitution,  has  fostered 
a  feeling  of  security  detrimental  to  the  cavise  of  temperance 
pure  and  simple.  Men  in  sympathy  with  the  aim  of  pro- 
hibition complain  that  the  temperance  work  which  formerly 
reached  the  masses  has  degenerated  into  meetings  for  politi- 
cal purposes,  or  that  the  agitation  for  abstinence  has  become 
a  cry  for  police  and  detective  methods.  The  identification 
of  great  temperance  organizations  with  party  politics  has 
crippled  their  influence  as  popular  moral  agents,  however 
much  it  may  have  aided  the  election  of  officials  chosen  for 
prohibitory  purposes. 

As  to  the  relation  of  politics  to  prohibition,  it  is  a  perti- 
nent remark  that  "  politics  have  a  double  effect  in  Maine, 
weakening  the  opposition  to  the  law  itself  as  well  as  weak- 
ening its  enforcement."  In  other  words,  whether  to  win 
favor  or  because  of  fear,  many  men  assume  a  friendly  atti- 
tude toward  the  law  in  which  they  disbelieve.      The  ques- 


GENERAL   SUMMARY.  95 

tion  of  enforcement  depends  mainly  on  political  exigencies, 
which,  again,  depend  on  the  state  of  public  opinion.  A 
fuU-bloAvn  hypocrisy  must  result  from  this  method  of  deal- 
ing with  prohibition.  iSTowhere  is  it  so  blatant  as  in  the 
legislative  halls,  where  men  lend  their  votes  in  support  of 
restrictive  measures  of  which  they  not  only  disapprove  but 
violate  openly  and  even  grossly.  The  corrupting  influence 
of  a  large  social  element  thriving  in  defiance  of  all  law  needs 
no  further  elucidation  ;  bribery,  perjury,  and  official  dis- 
honor follow  it. 


1894. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  PROHIBITION  IN  IOWA. 

The  First  General  Assembly  of  Iowa,  in  1846,  passed  an 
act  embodying  the  principle  of  local  option.  The  electors 
in  each  county  were  directed  to  vote  for  or  against  the 
granting  of  licenses  by  the  county  commissioners ;  the  re- 
sult was  almost  unanimously  against  the  retail  traffic ; 
only  one  county  cast  a  majority  in  its  favor.  At  first  this 
action  of  the  people  at  the  polls  ''seemed  to  put  a  slight 
check  on  the  liquor  traffic  :  some  grocery-keepers  quit  the 
business,  while  others  sold  commodities  and  gave  away 
liquor."  But  it  was  rumored  that  the  law  was  uncon- 
stitutional ;  and,  about  the  time  it  was  to  be  enforced,  an 
adverse  decision  upon  a  similar  statute  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania  ^  caused  the  Iowa  law  to  become  a 
dead  letter.  Many  counties  reversed  their  former  vote  and 
authorized  the  county  commissioners  to  give  licenses,  but 
even  under  these  circumstances  some  commissioners  refused 
to  do  it.  Accordingly  petitions  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of 
local  option  and  for  the  enactment  of  a  prohibitory  law  in 
its  stead  were  presented  to  the  legislature  of  1850. 

The  Code  of  loAva,  approved  in  1851,  contained  a  chapter 
on  the  "  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors,"  which  began  with 
the  declaration  that,  although  the  traffic  was  not  prohibited, 
"  the  people  of  this  State  will  hereafter  take  no  share  in 
the  profits."  It  forbade  the  retailing  of  liquors  by  the 
glass,  and  declared  dramshops  to  be  public  nuisances,  and 
was  in  effect  a  prohibitory  law,  though  it  assumed  not  to 
be  such. 

1  Sec  Barr's  Pennsylvania  State  Reports,  vol.  vi.  pp.  507-529,  Parker 
V.  Commonwealth. 


EARLY   PROHIBITIVE   EFFORTS.  97 

The  law  was  not  satisfactory  either  to  the  prohibitionists 
or  to  the  anti-prohibitionists  of  that  day.  The  Democratic 
governor,  in  1852,  suggested  its  repeal,  and  the  substitu- 
tion for  it  of  "  a  judicious  license  system."  The  prohibi- 
tionists, on  the  other  hand,  had  secured  between  four  and 
five  thousand  signatures  to  a  petition  for  the  enactment  of 
a  stronger  law ;   but  their  bill  failed  to  pass. 

In  1854  the  Whig  party  incorporated  in  its  platform  a 
resolution  declaring  for  a  law  prohibiting  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  ardent  spirits  within  the  State  as  a  beverage, 
which  was  the  first  appearance  in  Iowa  of  prohibition  as  a 
political  issue.  The  Whigs  elected  their  candidate  for 
governor  that  autumn  by  a  majority  of  1,823.  This  year, 
however,  the  original  prohibitory  law  was  repealed,  and  an 
act  passed  "  for  the  suppression  of  intemperance."  This 
was  in  substance  the  famous  "  Maine  law."  It  provided 
for  the  sale  of  liquors  by  county  agents,  "  for  medicinal, 
mechanical,  and  sacramental  purposes  only,"  but  "  foreign  " 
liquors  could  be  sold  by  importers  in  the  original  packages. 
Cider  and  wine  made  from  fruit  grown  by  the  maker  could 
also  be  sold  in  quantities  not  less  than  five  gallons.  Being 
submitted  to  the  people  at  the  April  election  in  1855,  it 
was  approved  by  a  majority  of  2,910.  The  validity  of  the 
new  act  was  disputed,  on  the  ground  that  its  submission 
was  unconstitutional.  But  the  Supreme  Court  held  that, 
although  the  popular  vote  in  its  favor  was  of  no  effect,  the 
act  was  a  complete  act  and  became  a  law  by  its  adoption 
by  the  General  Assembly  and  approval  by  the  governor. 

At  about  this  time  the  questions  growing  out  of  the  ef- 
fort to  extend  the  territorial  area  of  slavery  began  to  assume 
alarming  prominence.  The  early  settlers  of  Iowa  were 
strongly  anti-slavery  in  their  sentiments.  The  State  had 
been  decidedly  a  Democratic  State  till  1854,  when  it  became 
Whig,  and  in  1856  Republican.  There  was,  however,  a 
German  population,  disposed  to  vote  with  the  opponents  of 


98  THE    HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

slavery,  but  to  which  prohibition  was  repulsive.  Accord- 
ingly, to  propitiate  them  and  to  secure  their  adhesion  to  the 
new  Republican  party,  the  General  Assembly,  in  1856, 
passed  a  supplemental  act  designed  to  relax  the  rigor  of  ab- 
solute prohibition.  By  this  act  the  manufacture  of  cider, 
wine,  ale,  and  beer  was  authorized  without  restriction. 
Other  provisions  required  the  county  judge  in  any  county, 
on  the  petition  of  one  hundred  voters,  to  order  a  vote  taken 
at  any  election  on  the  question  of  license,  and  if  a  majority 
appeared  in  its  favor  he  was  authorized  to  grant  licenses 
for  the  sale  of  malt,  spirituous,  and  vinous  liquors. 

This  act  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  be  unconsti- 
tutional, on  the  ground  that  it  "  attempted  to  abrogate  the 
uniform  operation  of  a  law  general  in  its  nature  "  and  to 
"  provide  for  licensing  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  in 
any  county,  not  by  virtue  of  an  act  of  the  legislature  passed 
into  a  law,  but  by  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
such  county  expressed  at  the  polls,"  which  was  "  in  effect 
the  repeal  of  one  law  and  the  enactment  of  another  by  a 
vote  of  the  people,  ...  a  plain  surrender  to  the  people  of 
the  law-making  power."  The  court  said  that  "  the  prohi- 
bitory liquor  law  is  a  law  of  a  general  nature,  and  its  opera- 
tion must  be  uniform  throughout  the  State." 

In  1856  the  General  Assembly  abolished  the  county 
agent  system,  and  allowed  any  citizen  not  a  hotel-keeper,  or 
keeper  of  a  saloon  or  eating-house,  to  sell  "  intoxicating  " 
liquors  "  for  mechanical,  medicinal,  culinary,  and  sacra- 
mental purposes  only,"  if  furnished  with  the  required  legal 
certificate  to  his  citizenship  and  good  character.  Ko  com- 
mon carrier  nor  other  person  was  permitted  to  bring  liquor 
into  the  State,  unless  first  furnished  with  a  copy  of  this  cer- 
tificate. A  supplemental  act  in  1857  defined  intoxicating 
liquors  to  mean  "  all  spirituous,  malt,  and  vinous  liquors." 
By  this  act  the  manufacture  of  cider  or  wine  from  fruit 
grown  "  by  the  manufacturer  "  was  authorized. 


THE   POLITICAL   PARTIES   AND   PROHIBITION.  99 

In  1858,  to  suit  the  Germans,  the  law  was  so  modified 
as  to  exclude  from  the  definition  of  intoxicating  liquors  beer 
and  domestic  wine.  The  manufpcii'./e;  o^/lDeer  ^ti^i  ^lithor- 
ized,  also  of  wine  from  fruit  grown  f'  in  the  .State ,"  .  .With 
the  passage  of  this  act  the''fir.st'',peric?d;'of',p'J(i^iHitiW'm 
Iowa  came  to  an  end.  The  beer  and  wine  saloon  was 
now  recognized  as  a  legitimate  institution.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  this  was  a  concession  to  the  foreign  element 
in  the  population  of  the  State,  and  that  it  was  made  for 
purely  political  reasons.  The  sale  of  beer  was  regarded 
by  the  party  in  power  as  a  less  evil  than  the  risk  of  defeat 
at  the  polls,  and  the  consequent  possible  inclusion  of  Iowa 
with  the  States  which  might,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  con- 
sent to  the  extension  of  the  area  of  slavery.  This  was, 
evidently,  the  controlling  consideration  which  secured  the 
passage  of  the  measure.  An  additional  motive  of  minor 
importance  was  the  desire  to  encourage  foreign  immigra- 
tion. An  immigration  association  held  the  title  to  vast 
tracts  of  land  in  the  northwestern  portion  of  the  State, 
and  had  persuaded  the  legislature  to  make  an  appropriation 
for  the  payment  of  immigration  agents,  who  circulated  in 
Germany  and  Sweden  documents  setting  forth  the  adapta- 
bility of  Iowa  soil  for  the  growth  of  barley  and  grapes. 

In  1859  the  prohibitory  law,  even  with  this  concession, 
was  attacked  by  the  Democratic  State  Convention  as  "  incon- 
sistent with  the  spirit  of  a  free  people,  unjust  and  burden- 
some in  its  operations,  and  wholly  useless  in  the  suppression 
of  intemperance."  In  1866  the  party  demanded  the  repeal 
of  the  law.  In  1867  it  avowed  itself  in  favor  of  a  "  well- 
regulated  license  law  ;  "  in  1869  it  pronoimced  the  Maine 
law  "a  disgrace  to  the  statutes  of  Iowa."  During  all  this 
time  no  other  party  took  any  position  on  the  question. 
The  Republicans  ignored  it ;  the  Prohibition  party  had  not 
yet  come  into  being.  The  struggle  for  prohibition,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  for  a  general  license  law  (with  or  without 


100  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

local  option),  on  the  other,  went  on,  for  a  dozen  years  or 
morej  in  the  General  Assembly,  with  no  very  important 
legislat:te  Tesult.  .'  The  Civil  War  and  the  problem  of  "re- 
construction "  absorbed  a  large  portion  of  the  political  en- 
ergiW'of  ^h's  jiedpie  hi  the  "State.  In  1862  the  principle  of 
liability,  on  the  part  of  the  owner  of  premises  used  as  a 
dramshop,  for  damages  growing  out  of  the  traffic,  was  in- 
corporated in  the  statutes.  The  liquor-dealers  of  the  State 
had  by  1867  come  to  have  $2,000,000  invested  in  the 
trade.  The  House  committee  on  the  suppression  of  intem- 
perance, while  it  was  for  prohibition  in  sentiment,  yet 
admitted  that  "  intemperance  has  steadily  and  alarmingly 
increased  during  the  past  five  years,"  and  attributed  the 
fact  largely  to  the  Civil  War.  The  Liquor  Dealers'  Asso- 
ciation had  raised  by  assessment  a  fund  to  be  employed  in 
fighting  the  law.  That  association  made  itself  responsible 
for  taking  the  liquor  question  into  state  partisan  politics, 
by  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution  in  1866 :  — 

"Resolved,  That  at  the  coming  election  we  willsupport.no 
candidates  for  state  or  county  offices  who  do  not  pledge  them- 
selves in  writing  to  favor  the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  liquor 
law  and  the  enactment  of  a  judicious  license  law  in  its  stead, 
but  will  do  our  utmost  to  defeat  the  candidates  opposed  to  said 
measures,  regardless  of  party  issues." 

The  answer  to  this  challenge  was  a  petition  with  40,000 
signatures  for  prohibition,  and  an  act  empowering  incorpo- 
rated towns  and  cities  under  special  charters  to  "  regulate 
or  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  not  prohibited 
by  state  law,"  including  beer  and  wine,  and  to  "impose 
a  tax  on  such  sale." 

In  1870-71  the  Avarring  factions  compromised  upon  a 
local  option  measure,  which  was  subsequently  held  by  the 
Supreme  Court  to  be  unconstitutional. 

The  struggle  continued,  with  various  changes  in  the  law, 
till  1874-75,  when  the  prohibitionists  concluded  that  the 


THE   RISE   OF  THE   PROHIBITIONISTS.  101 

time  had  arrived  for  independent  party  action.  They  met 
in  convention.  They  scored  the  Democrats  for  favoring 
license,  and  the  Republicans  f«r  TEfiisirig  >to  adopt,"  a  reso- 
lution opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  proliibitory  laW.  They 
declared  that  "the  temperance  BeoMe<ot  loiva  ;are,:  by  this 
action  of  these  political  parties,  forced  to  seek  the  promo- 
tion of  their  objects  by  such  organizations  and  combina- 
tions as  may  prove  most  effective  for  the  success  of  the 
temperance  cause,  without  reference  to  previous  political 
affiliation."  They  then  put  a  ticket  of  their  own  in  nomi- 
nation and  cast  at  the  next  election  1,397  votes.  No  im- 
mediate legislative  result  followed.  But  in  1877,  the 
Democrats  having  proposed  that  the  moneys  received  for 
liquor  licenses  should  be  paid  into  the  school  fund,  the 
new  party  declared  that  the  evil  of  intemperance  "has 
long  since  assumed  a  political  form,  and  can  never  be  elimi- 
nated from  politics  until  our  legislatures  and  courts  accom- 
plish its  entire  overthrow  and  destruction."  At  the  fol- 
lowing election  it  polled  more  than  10,000  votes.  The 
situation  was  serious,  and  the  politicians  took  the  alarm. 
In  1878  the  Republicans  resolved  that  "  personal  temper- 
ance is  a  most  commendable  virtue  in  a  people,  and  the 
practical  popular  movement  now  active  throughout  the 
State  for  the  promotion  of  temperance  has  our  most  pro- 
found respect,  sympathy,  and  approval."  That  year,  the 
Republican  candidate  for  secretary  of  state  was  elected, 
in  spite  of  a  fusion  between  the  "  Greenbackers "  and 
Democrats,  but  by  a  margin  of  only  8,000.  From  this 
moment  it  became  the  most  ardent  wish  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  leaders  to  get  the  temperance  question  "  out  of 
politics." 

It  is  impossible  to  write  the  history  of  prohibition  in 
Iowa  without  perpetual  reference  to  the  political  aspects  of 
the  controversy.  This  is  because  it  in  turn  affected  party 
action  and  was   affected   by  it ;  the   two  were   inseparable. 


102  THE   HISTORY   OF   PKOHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

It  might  almost  be  entitled  an  account  of  an  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  Republican  party.  The  course  of  the  Demo- 
cratic pvirty  was  •leso;i^fi,ucnved,  for  the  obvious  reason  that 
its  attitude  to  ■  prohibition'  was  determined  by  its  funda- 
meofaj  ipdUticR-I^fconVictialis.  ;The  Republican  party  had, 
as 'such,  nb'convictioiis  oil  the  subject;  it  temporized  with 
the  movement,  sought  to  take  advantage  of  it,  and  to  re- 
strain it  within  bounds.  It  was  indifferent  or  hostile  to  it, 
when  it  was  weak ;  subservient,  when  dangerous.  But  it 
would  be  unjust  to  suppose  that  the  only  forces  at  work 
during  this  memorable  period  were  ambition  and  self-in- 
terest. Political  trickery  and  hypocrisy  in  the  methods 
pursued  were  strangely  blended  with  sincere  and  noble 
aims.  To  the  ardent  friends  of  prohibition  their  cause 
represented  the  triumph  of  the  spiritual  over  the  animal 
elements  in  human  nature  ;  it  represented  self-control  and 
self-denial,  the  abolition  of  drunkenness,  the  salvation  of 
the  drunkard  and  his  family,  the  deliverance  of  their  own 
and  their  neighbors'  posterity  from  the  blight  of  an  ungov- 
ernable appetite,  and  therefore  the  decline  of  pauperism, 
vice,  and  crime.  The  opponents  of  prohibition,  in  so  far 
as  they  were  actuated  by  principle,  regarded  the  attempt  to 
create  habits  of  sobriety  by  coercion  as  a  threat,  unjustifi- 
able in  itself  and  perilous  to  human  freedom.  They  espe- 
cially detested  the  cowardice  and  falsehood  which  led  so 
many  men  to  profess  prohibition  principles  and  indulge  in 
secret  potations,  the  fanaticism  which  pretended  that  the 
use  of  alcohol  was  in  itself  sinful,  and  the  moral  confusion 
of  ideas  which  transferred  the  responsibility  for  its  use  from 
the  purchaser  to  the  man  from  whom  he  bought  it. 

The  campaign  of  1877,  at  which  the  third  party  cast 
10,000  votes,  thereby  putting  John  H.  Gear,  the  Repub- 
lican candidate  for  governor,  in  the  mortifying  position  of 
receiving  G74  fewer  votes  than  the  combined  opposition  to 
him,  is  locally  known  as  the  "  Jessup  "  campaign,  because 


THE   PROHIBITORY    AMENDMENT.  103 

Dr.  Elias  Jessup  was  the  Prohibition  candidate  for  gov- 
ernor. Only  the  year  before  the  Republicans  had  had  a  ma- 
jority of  50,000  over  all  opponents.  Governor  Kirkwood's 
majority  in  1875  had  been  30,000.  The  Republicans  had 
most  to  lose  and  were  in  greatest  danger.  Accordingly  in 
1879  they  ''  hailed  with  pleasure  the  beneficent  work  of 
reform  clubs  and  other  organizations  in  promoting  personal 
temperance,"  and,  "  in  order  that  the  question  of  prohibition 
may  be  settled  in  a  non-partisan  manner,"  they  favored  the 
submission  to  the  people,  at  a  special  election,  of  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
all  intoxicating  liquors.  The  Democrats  were  "  desirous  of 
promoting  temperance,  and,  being  opposed  to  free  whiskey, 
in  favor  of  a  judicious  license  law."  The  General  Assembly 
in  1880-81  adopted  a  joint  resolution  proposing  this  amend- 
ment to  Article  I.  of  the  State  Constitution,  and  referring 
it  to  the  succeeding  General  Assembly  :  — 

"  No  person  shall  manufacture  for  sale,  or  sell,  or  keep  for 
sale,  as  a  beverage,  any  intoxicating  liquor  whatever,  including 
ale,  wine,  and  beer.  The  General  Assembly  shall  by  law  pre- 
scribe regulations  for  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibition 
herein  contained,  and  shall  thereby  provide  suitable  penalties 
for  the  violation  of  the  provisions  hereof." 

Vigorous  opposition  was  made  to  the  resolution,  but  to 
the  mass  of  arguments  arrayed  against  it  the  Republicans, 
with  few  exceptions,  made  no  reply,  except  to  declare  that 
they  were  bound  by  their  pledge,  and  to  pass  the  resolution. 

When,  in  1882,  this  amendment  again  came  up  for  rati- 
fication by  the  General  Assembly,  the  Brewers'  Association 
submitted  a  written  protest  asserting  that  there  were  then 
about  140  breweries  in  the  State,  malting  250,000  barrels 
of  beer  annually,  and  that  the  amount  permanently  in- 
vested in  the  business  was  about  $4,000,000  —  a  very 
extravagant  estimate.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  marie 
to   secure   from  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  a   report 


104  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

whether  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  would  involve  the 
State  in  the  payment  of  damages  sustained  by  the  owners 
of  property  used  for  the  manufacture  of  spirituous,  malt, 
and  vinous  liquors.  At  that  time  there  had  just  been 
built,  at  Des  Moines,  the  International  Distillery,  owned 
by  Mr.  John  S.  Kidd  and  not  a  member  of  the  Western 
Export  Association  (commonly  known  as  the  "  Whiskey 
Trust").  The  city  of  Des  Moines  had  agreed  to  exempt 
this  property  from  taxation  for  five  years.  The  Senate 
adopted  an  explanatory  resolution  (which  could  have  no 
legal  effect),  declaring  that  the  prohibitory  amendment 
would  apply  to  domestic  traffic  only,  but  place  no  restric- 
tion upon  the  manufacture  of  liquors  for  export.  It  is 
somewhat  significant  that  the  prohibitionists  in  the  Senate 
voted  for  this  resolution. 

The  prohibitory  amendment  was  voted  upon  at  the  gen- 
eral state  election  in  June,  1882,  when  it  was  adopted  by 
a  majority  of  29,759.  The  vote  for  secretary  of  state  at 
the  same  election  showed  a  Republican  plurality  of  38,185. 
The  total  number  of  votes  on  the  amendment,  compared 
with  the  total  cast  for  all  candidates  for  secretary  of  state, 
shows  that  11,171  voters  refused  to  go  on  record  for  or 
against  the  amendment.  Nevertheless  it  received  6,385 
more  votes  than  the  Republican  candidate,  and  the  majority 
in  its  favor  exceeded  his  majority  by  23,941.  Undoubtedly 
many  Republicans  abstained  from  voting  or  voted  against 
the  amendment.  It  is  probable  that  it  received  some  Demo- 
cratic votes;  but  the  figures  do  not,  upon  their  face,  sup- 
port the  theory  subsequently  advanced  by  Republican  anti- 
prohibitionists,  that  it  was  carried  by  Democratic  votes, 
insincerely  cast,  Avith  the  design  to  throw  the  odium  of  its 
passage  upon  their  political  adversaries. 

The  governor  issued  his  proclamation  announcing  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment.  The  liquor  interest,  however, 
did  not  propose  to  yield  without  a  struggle.    In  various  cases 


THE  DAVENPORT   CASE.  105 

tried  by  the  inferior  courts  the  claim  was  made  that  the 
amendment  itself  was  unconstitutional.  What  is  known  as 
the  "  Davenport "  case,^  which  was  a  test  case,  both  parties 
being  hostile  to  the  amendment,  Avas  tried  before  the  Dis- 
trict Court  in  Scott  County,  and  the  decision  was  adverse  to 
the  amendment.  The  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
where  the  arguments  turned  on  the  wording  of  the  reso- 
lution of  submission  as  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly. 
The  resolution  as  passed  by  the  House  did  not  verbally 
correspond  to  the  resolution  as  passed  by  the  Senate  and 
voted  on  by  the  people.  It  was  contended  by  the  adver- 
saries of  the  amendment  that  this  disagreement  was  such 
a  want  of  conformity  to  the  method  prescribed  in  the  Con- 
stitution for  its  own  amendment  as  to  render  the  proceed- 
ing null  and  void ;  and  in  an  elaborate  opinion,  rendered 
January  18,  1883,  the  Supreme  Court  sustained  the  objec- 
tion. 

The  consequence  of  this  decision  was  an  agitation  which 
shook  the  State  from  the  centre  to  the  circumference. 
The  State  Temperance  Alliance  and  the  State  Temperance 
Association  joined  in  a  call  for  a  State  Prohibition  Con- 
vention. This  convention  formulated  a  request  to  the 
governor  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  Legislature  for 
the  submission  to  the  people  of  a  new  prohibitory  amend- 
ment and  for  the  immediate  enactment  of  a  prohibitory 
law.  This  the  governor  declined  to  do,  on  the  ground 
that  the  emergency  was  not  such  as  to  constitute  "  an 
extraordinary  occasion,"  and  that  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution cannot  legally  be  proposed  save  at  a  regular  ses- 
sion. In  the  next  Republican  convention  Mr.  Kasson,  the 
temporary  chairman,  said :  "  In  the  great  and  unending 
debate  between  the  claims  of  Iowa  homes  and  the  demands 
of  Iowa  saloons,  the  Republican  party,  enlightened  by  and 
obedient  to  the  popular  verdict  rendered  just  one  year  ago 
1  Koehler  and  Lang  (brewers)  v.  John  Hill  (a  saloon-keeper). 


106  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

to-day,  ought  not,  cannot,  and  will  not  take  the  side  of 
the  saloon."  Mr.  ]\Ianning,  in  accepting  the  nomination 
for  the  lieutenant-governorship,  exclaimed :  "  Republican- 
ism means  protected  homes  and  firesides,  —  a  schoolhouse 
on  every  hill  and  no  saloon  in  the  valley."  This  last 
phrase  became  a  national  prohibition  war-cry.  The  Dem- 
ocratic party  favored  "  a  well-regulated  license  law." 

In  the  campaign  which  followed,  the  State  Temperance 
Alliance,  with  which  the  State  Temperance  Association 
had  been  consolidated,  took  a  leading  part,  seconded  by 
nearly  all  the  Protestant  churches.  The  "  Third  Party  " 
made  no  separate  nominations  but  supported  the  Republi- 
can ticket. 

In  the  next  General  Assembly,  at  "  the  most  exciting 
session  in  the  history  of  Iowa  legislation,"  an  act,  knoAvn 
as  the  Kennedy  bill,  was  passed,  which  was  intended  to 
secure  total  prohibition  and  to  incorporate  the  prohibitory 
amendment  in  the  statutes.  The  Brewers'  Association  un- 
dertook to  test  the  validity  of  the  act.  The  State  Temperance 
Alliance  issued  an  appeal  for  the  formation  of  auxiliary 
county  alliances  throughout  the  State  to  aid  in  its  enforce- 
ment. Many  saloon-keepers  voluntarily  went  out  of  busi- 
ness. Others  were  prosecuted.  Resistance  was  made  both 
in  and  out  of  the  courts.  There  were  mobs  and  riots  at 
various  places  during  the  summer,  especially  at  Burlington 
and  Iowa  City.  At  Burlington  an  attempt  was  made  to  blow 
up  with  dynamite  the  residence  of  the  prosecuting  attorney  ; 
a  mob  threatened  a  prominent  merchant  who  had  filed  in- 
formation against  two  saloon-keepers.  At  Iowa  City  an 
informer's  house  was  stoned,  and  a  rope  left  hanging  on  a 
lamp-post  near  by,  with  a  placard  bearing  the  inscription, 
*'  To  the  informer  —  death  !  "  On  the  day  before  the  trial 
an  attorney  for  the  prosecution  was  seized,  stripped,  and 
his  body  was  coated  with  brewers'  tar  ;  a  mob  pursued  him 
to  the  residence  of  the  magistrate  before  whom  the  suit  was 


DISTURBANCES    OF   THE    PEACE.  107 

brought,  and  there  sought  to  kill  him.  This  mob  broke  up 
the  court,  held  possession  of  the  town  for  three  days,  and 
it  was  nearly  a  week  before  any  arrests  were  made.  In 
Des  Moines  there  was  no  popular  disturbance,  but  two 
saloon-keepers,  who  were  forced  to  close  their  doors,  posted 
notices,  of  which  one  read  :  "  Convicted  before  guilty. 
Writ  of  injunction  served  on  this  building  to  restrain  the 
sale  therein  of  any  intoxicating  liquors,  while  no  such 
charge  has  yet  been  proven  in  any  court."  The  other : 
"  Closed  by  writ  of  injunction,  by  virtue  of  a  law  passed  by 
a  Republican  legislature,  signed  by  a  Republican  governor, 
issued  by  a  Republican  judge,  prosecuted  by  a  Republican 
sheriff,  —  a  hired  spy  and  informer,  —  served  by  a  Repub- 
lican deputy  sherifi',  and  sworn  to  by  hirelings."  These 
incidents  sufficiently  illustrate  the  temper  of  the  times. 

The  first  of  the  notices  just  quoted  was  posted  by  Louis 
Pritz.  The  temporary  injunction  of  which  he  complained 
was  issued  September  24,  1884,  by  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Polk  County,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  his  attor- 
neys, who  claimed  that  a  temporary  injunction  was  not, 
upon  the  showing  of  the  petition  in  the  case,  authorized  by 
the  statutes  of  Iowa  nor  by  the  rules  of  chancery  procedure  ; 
that  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction  of  the  matters  therein 
set  forth  —  the  same,  if  true,  constituting  a  violation  of  the 
criminal  law  ;  that  the  defendant  was  entitled  to  a  trial  by 
jury  ;  and  that  the  section  of  the  Code  under  which  the 
suit  was  brought  was  unconstitutional,  since  it  assumed  to 
deprive  a  citizen  of  liberty  and  property  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law,  and  to  subject  him  to  punishment  by  fine  and 
imprisonment  summarily,  without  the  intervention  of  a 
grand  jury  or  trial  by  jury  according  to  the  course  of  the 
common  law.  An  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  was 
taken.  The  Supreme  Court,  in  its  decision,  announced 
March  17,  held  that  the  statute  was  not  contrary  to  tlie 
Bill  of  Rights  ;  that  a  temporary  injunction  might  properly 


108  THE    HISTORY. OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

issue  in  advance  of  trial  upon  the  criminal  charge  ;  and  that 
the  purpose  of  such  injunction  was  not  to  punish  the  alleged 
culprit.     The  action  of  the  lower  court  was  sustained. 

In  addition  to  the  resort  to  violent  methods  of  resistance 
and  the  appeal  -to  the  courts,  in  some  counties  the  boards  of 
supervisors  made  free  use  of  the  power  vested  in  them  to 
grant  permits  for  the  sale  of  liquor  for  the  lawful  uses 
specified  in  the  statute,  under  the  color  of  which  permits 
liquor  was  sold  for  unlawful  uses.  In  other  counties  the 
law  was  openly  defied  and  set  at  naught  by  the  granting 
of  licenses,  presumably  by  authority  of  the  section  of  the 
general  municipal  incorporation  act  conferring  power  upon 
municipal  corporations  to  regulate  or  prohibit  the  sale  of 
liquors  whose  sale  is  not  forbidden  by  law  —  although, 
under  the  new  act,  the  sale  of  all  liquors  as  a  beverage  was 
in  fact  prohibited.  The  City  Council  of  Keokuk,  on  the 
Mississippi  River,  passed  an  ordinance,  for  example,  per- 
mitting the  sale  of  "  temperance  drinks."  Sioux  City,  on 
the  Missouri  Eiver,  adopted  a  "  tavern  ordinance,"  under 
which  saloon-keepers  were  obliged  to  pay  a  license  fee  of 
$1,000  a  year.  At  a  meeting  of  mayors  in  Des  Moines  in 
December,  1885,  Mayor  Davis  said  that  Keokuk  had,  when 
the  act  went  into  effect,  sixty-nine  saloons,  which  paid  into 
the  city  treasury  an  annual  revenue  of  $14,500.  Within 
sixty  days  thereafter,  owing  to  the  removal  of  the  tax  and 
the  withdrawal  of  municipal  control,  the  number  increased 
to  ninety.  A  fight  ensued  between  the  "  Law  and  Order 
League  "  and  the  "  Personal  Liberty  League,"  in  which  the 
latter  gained  the  victory  in  the  local  courts.  Thereupon 
the  city  imposed  a  $400  license  tax,  and  the  number  of 
saloons  fell  to  forty,  the  annual  revenue  from  which  was 
$16,000.  The  mayors'  convention  adopted  a  memorial  to 
the  legislature,  one  of  the  statements  in  which  was  that  in 
twenty-three  cities  named,  the  number  of  saloons,  which 
before  the  passage  of  the  act  was  8G6,  was  now  1,436. 


THE   TRIUMI'II   OF   THE   PROHIBITIONISTS.  109 

The  indifference  and  hostility  of  the  local  officers,  mu- 
nicipal and  judicial,  which  rendered  the  act  in  so  many- 
counties  practically  a  nullity,  and  the  trouhle  and  expense 
to  which  the  friends  of  prohibition  were  everywhere  put, 
in  order  to  reap  the  practical  fruit  of  their  victory  at  the 
polls  and  in  the  legislature,  created  a  demand  on  the  part 
of  some  of  them  for  a  State  Constabulary  to  initiate  and 
press  prosecutions  for  unlawful  sales,  even  in  the  rebellious 
counties  ;  but  there  has  never  been  a  time  when  so  drastic 
a  remedy  has  had  sufficient  popular  support  in  Iowa  to  ad- 
mit of  its  application.  One  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  was  the  refusal  of  juries,  in  many 
cases,  to  render  a  verdict  of  guilty,  even  where  the  evidence 
for  the  prosecution  was  convincing. 

The  feeling  engendered  on  both  sides  by  the  events 
above  alluded  to,  and  by  many  other  incidents,  was  intense. 
It  divided  friends,  neighbors,  and  even  families.  It  can 
be  compared  only  to  the  animosities  in  the  Border  States  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.  Both  sides  prepared  for 
the  decisive  struggle  which  occurred  in  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1885-86.  That  the  law  had  been  enforced  with 
some  degree  of  efficiency  in  certain  districts,  chiefly  rural, 
was  not  denied.  Of  420  prosecutions  initiated  in  93  coun- 
ties, 372  had  resulted  in  conviction.  Of  1,085  saloons  in 
certain  counties,  701  had  been  closed.  These  figures  are 
taken  from  the  report  made  to  the  State  Temperance 
Alliance  at  its  annual  meeting  in  January,  1886.  The 
bold  resistance  made  to  enforcement  had  exasperated  and 
augmented  the  prevalent  sentiment  in  favor  of  prohibition 
to  a  high  degree.  Money  was  freely  expended  by  both 
sides  at  the  election  in  1885,  the  result  of  which  was  a 
decided  majority  of  prohibitionists  in  both  branches  of  the 
Twenty-First  General  Assembly. 

The  opposition  exhibited  its  usual  courage  and  persist- 
ence in  the  introduction  of  various  license  measures,  some 


110  THE    HISTORY    OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

of  which  embodied  the  principle  of  local  option  and  au- 
thorized a  popular  vote  on  the  question  by  counties  or  by 
municipal  corporations.  All  these  failed.  The  majority 
was  determined  to  find  a  way,  if  possible,  to  make  prohibi- 
tion a  reality.  The  bill  finally  agreed  to  was  known,  from 
its  author,  as  the  Clark  bill.  In  an  impassioned  speech 
in  its  favor,  Senator  Clark  dramatically  exclaimed  :  "  I  am 
willing  to  give  up  my  homestead  and  every  dollar  which  I 
possess,  to  take  my  wife  and  sweet  children,  and  to  go  out 
into  the  highway,  barefooted,  as  a  beggar,  if  the  sacrifice 
would  shut  up  these  moral  sinks  of  Iowa."  It  passed  the 
Senate,  in  1886,  by  a  vote  of  29  to  16,  and  the  House  by 
56  to  43  —  a  majority  of  13  in  each  branch.  It  had  the 
effect  desired,  that  of  closing  the  doors  of  the  saloons. 
The  essential  features  of  this  act  are  as  follows :  — 

"  Any  citizen  of  the  county  may  institute  proceedings  for  the 
abatement  of  a  liquor  nuisance  in  the  name  of  the  State,  if  the 
district  or  county  attorney  refuse  or  neglect  to  do  so.  Evidence 
of  the  general  reputation  of  the  place  shall  be  admissible  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  the  existence  of  the  nuisance. 

"If  it  appears  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  the  nui- 
sance complained  of  actually  exists,  a  temporary  injunction 
shall  be  granted.  The  court  shall  have  power  to  try  summarily 
and  punish  the  party  found  guilty  of  violating  any  injunction 
granted  under  such  action. 

"  The  penalty  for  keeping  a  nuisance  shall  be  a  fine  not  less 
than  $300  or  more  than  $1,000  ;  the  jierson  convicted  to  stand 
committed  until  the  fine  and  costs  are  paid. 

"  The  liquor  found  on  the  premises  shall  be  seized  and  de- 
stroyed ;  and  all  movable  property  be  removed  and  sold.  The 
building  shall  be  kejit  closed  for  one  year,  in  order  to  prevent 
its  occupation  for  saloon  purposes. 

"If  the  owner  of  the  premises  pay  all  the  costs  of  proceeding 
and  give  a  bond  with  sureties,  in  the  full  value  of  the  property, 
conditioned  that  he  will  immediately  abate  the  nuisance,  and 
prevent  the  same  from  being  established  or  kept  therein  within 
the  period  of  one  yeai-,  the  judge  may  order  the  premises  to  be 
delivered  to  the  owner,  and  tlie  order  of  abatement  is  then 
canceled. 


THE   CLARK   ACT.  Ill 

"  The  finding  of  intoxicating  lic^uors,  except  on  the  premises 
of  one  legally  authorized  to  sell  the  same  or  in  a  private  house, 
shall  be  presumptive  evidence  of  illegal  sale. 

''  On  a  second  conviction  for  keeping  a  liquor  nuisance,  or  for 
violating  the  law  while  under  an  injunction,  the  penalty  shall 
be  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  from  three  months  to  one 
year. 

"  Common  carriers,  or  any  other  person,  who  knowingly  bring 
into  the  State  for  others,  or  ti-ansport  from  place  to  place 
within  the  State,  any  intoxicating  liquors  without  first  having 
been  furnished  with  a  certificate  under  seal  from  the  county 
auditor  of  the  county  to  which  the  licpiors  are  consigned,  certi- 
fying that  the  person  to  whom  it  is  brought  is  authorized  to 
sell  liquors  in  the  county,  shall  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  iSlOO.  The 
offense  shall  be  held  to  have  been  committed  in  any  county  of 
the  State  through  or  to  which  the  liquors  are  transported,  or 
■within  which  they  are  conveyed  from  place  to  place.  Any 
peace  officer  may  vinder  warrant  open  any  package  suspected  of 
containing  liquor,  either  before  or  while  the  same  is  being 
transported. 

"  For  all  fines  and  costs  or  judgments  rendered  for  violation 
of  this  act,  the  personal  and  real  property  "  [both  of  the  lic^uor- 
seller  and  of  the  owner  of  the  premises  used  as  a  dramshop] 
"  shall  be  liable  ;  and  all  such  fines,  costs,  and  judgments  shall 
be  a  lien  upon  such  real  estate  until  paid." 

This  bill,  as  will  be  seen,  embodies  three  principles, 
namely,  that  liquor-selling,  contrary  to  law,  is  a  nuisance ; 
that  it  may  be  proceeded  against  by  injunction  and  punished 
as  contempt  of  court ;  and  that  judgments  rendered  can  be 
collected  of  the  owner  of  the  premises. 

A  bill  introduced  at  the  same  session  for  the  creation  of 
a  State  Constabulary  did  not  come  to  a  vote.  A  "  phar- 
macy bill  "  passed,  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  state  the 
leading  feature,  because  it  had  the  result  of  transferring  a 
large  share  of  the  saloon  trade  to  the  drug-stores.  The 
Iowa  Pharmaceutical  Association  had  long  wished  a  law 
which  "  Avould  protect  an  honorable  profession  from  the 
evils  growing  out  of  the  indiscriminate  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  by  so-called  druggists."     The  legislature  had  created, 


112  THE   HISTORY    OF    PKOHIBITION    IN   IOWA. 

in  1880,  a  board  of  pharmacy  commissioners,  by  whom  phar- 
macists were  to  be  examined  and  registered  ;  the  keeping 
of  a  drug-store  by  persons  not  thus  registered  "was  made  a 
misdemeanor.  It  was  made  illegal  for  any  licensed  or  reg- 
istered pharmacist  to  retail  or  sell  or  give  away  any  alco- 
holic liquors  or  compounds  as  a  beverage.  For  repeated 
violations  he  was  liable  to  have  his  name  stricken  from  the 
register.  But  it  was  no  longer  necessary  for  a  druggist  to 
secure  a  permit  or  to  file  the  returns  required  by  permit- 
holders.  In  1884  this  act  was  materially  amended.  The 
obtaining  of  a  permit  was  again  made  obligatory  ;  the  appli- 
cant was  required  to  present  to  the  county  board  a  petition 
signed  by  one  fourth  of  the  freeholders  in  his  township,  town, 
or  ward,  and  to  procure  shipping  permits,  without  which 
common  carriers  could  not  deliver  liquors  to  them.  They 
must  make  monthly  returns,  in  detail,  to  the  county  audi- 
tors, and  the  returns  must  be  accompanied  by  duplicate 
applications  executed  by  each  purchaser.  These  provisions 
were  retained  in  the  pharmacy  act  of  1886  ;  and  in  ad- 
dition it  was  enacted  that  "  pharmacists  whose  certificates 
of  registration  are  in  full  force  and  effect  shall  have  the 
sole  right  to  keep  and  to  sell,  under  such  regulations  as 
have  been  or  may  be  established  from  time  to  time  by  the 
commissioners  of  pharmacy,  all  medicines  and  poisons,  in- 
cluding intoxicating  liquors  only  for  the  actual  necessities 
of  medicine." 

The  operation  of  these  two  statutes  —  the  Clark  act  and 
the  pharmacy  act  —  was  precisely  what  might  have  been 
expected.  The  ease  with  which  proceedings  could  be 
instituted  in  equity  against  owners  of  property  rented  for 
saloons,  and  the  tremendous  eff'ect  of  injunctions  granted 
against  them,  rendered  it  practically  impossible  for  saloon- 
keepers to  hire  premises  to  carry  on  their  business.  A 
general  suspension  of  the  saloon  traffic  was  inevitable. 
Forty  saloons  closed  in  Des  Moines  in  a  single  fortnight. 


DKUGGISTS   AS  LIQUOR-SELLERS.  113 

In  Burlington  113  saloons  were  voluntarily  closed  in  less 
than  a  month.  The  same  condition  was  general  through- 
out the  State.  If  prohibition  was  aimed  exclusively  at  the 
saloon,  even  the  enemies  of  prohibition  were  compelled  to 
acknowledge  that  at  last  it  had  accomplished  its  purpose. 

But  although  this  source  of  supply  was  shut  off,  the 
demand  for  stimulants  was  precisely  what  it  had  been 
before  the  passage  of  the  act.  The  most  immediate, 
obvious,  and  respectable  source  of  supply  was  the  drug- 
stores, which  immediately  began  to  do  a  thriving  trade  in 
liquors,  purchased  ostensibly  for  medicinal  use,  but  in  real- 
ity to  be  consumed,  if  not  in  the  shop,  at  least  at  home,  as 
a  beverage.  In  a  paper  read  before  the  State  Pharmaceu- 
tical Association  in  March,  1887,  Mr.  Korman  Lichty 
humorously  set  forth  the  embarrassment  of  the  honorable 
and  law-abiding  pharmacist  in  the  position  in  which  he 
found  himself,  between  his  customer  and  the  stringent  pro- 
visions of  the  pharmacy  act.  "  The  law  of  human  neces- 
sity has  forbidden  the  elimination  of  alcohol  from  the 
pharmaceutical  laboratory ;  and  the  law  of  Iowa  has  made 
the  pharmacist  the  sole  authorized  dispenser  of  this  class 
of  poisons.  On  one  side  of  us  is  the  law,  holding  aloft 
a  placard  inscribed  '  Here  is  the  only  place  where  whiskey 
can  be  legally  purchased  ;  '  on  the  other  are  our  patrons, 
who  threaten  to  take  their  custom  elsewhere,  if  we  refuse 
to  risk  the  consequences  of  the  violation  of  law  at  their 
request.  .  .  .  Many  of  our  customers  are  in  the  habit  of 
determining  for  themselves  when  they  need  a  cathartic,  a 
tonic,  or  a  sedative.  They  claim  the  same  right  to  use 
their  own  judgment  in  regard  to  liquors.  Shall  I  reply 
with  smiling  alacrity  to  the  wants  of  dyspepsia  and  bile 
and  malaria,  and  flatter  their  victims  on  their  choice  of 
remedies,  and  then  turn  to  my  colicky  friend  and  insult  his 
intelligence  or  wound  his  pride  by  bidding  him  go  and  take 
a  dose  of  cayenne  pepper  or  ginger  tea  ?  " 


114  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

There  were  druggists  whose  conscience  was  not  over-sen- 
sitive ;  or  the  chink  of  coin  was  an  effective  solace  for  its 
wounds.  Some  moved  forward  the  partition  which  divided 
the  public  shop  from  the  prescription  case  and  counter  in 
the  rear,  thus  giving  room  for  the  organization  of  an 
extemporized  and  irregular  bar,  entered,  possibly,  by  a 
swinging  door,  to  which  friends  (and  strangers  who  suc- 
ceeded in  disarming  suspicion)  were  freely  admitted.  Many 
ex-saloon-keepers  opened  drug-stores,  in  which  a  beggarly 
array  of  bottles  and  jars,  with  cheap  but  gaudy  chemical 
liquids  and  powders,  served  as  a  blind  ;  the  real  business 
of  the  place  was  carried  on  in  the  back  room.  They  hired 
registered  and  licensed  pharmacists  as  clerks,  or  took  them 
into  partnership.  The  anger  of  the  prohibitionists  can 
readily  be  imagined.  As  Mr.  Lichty  truly  said  :  "  The  fact 
is  that  enormous  quantities  of  liquors  are  sold  to  consumers 
in  this  State  by  the  traveling  salesmen  of  Eastern  houses. 
These  agents  require  no  declaration  of  the  purpose  for 
which  the  liquor  is  required ;  they  have  no  care  whether  it 
is  to  be  used  for  medicine,  or  whether  the  purchaser  is  a 
minor  or  in  the  habit  of  becoming  intoxicated.  But  the 
pharmacist  is  held  responsible  for  it  all."  The  pretense  of 
insuring  obedience  to  the  law  by  requiring  druggists  to  file 
detailed  accounts  of  their  purchases  and  sales,  verified  by 
the  original  statements  of  the  purchasers  "  that  they  were 
of  age,  not  in  the  habit  of  using  intoxicating  liquors,  and 
did  not  design  using  them  as  a  beverage,"  was  farcical  in  its 
transparent  simplicity.  Guests  at  hotels  could  order  wine 
or  beer  for  the  table  on  a  "  pharmacy  blank."  Fraudulent 
returns  could  be  filed,  without  a  possibility  of  the  fraud 
being  detected.  Fictitious  signatures  were  easily  attached 
to  the  blanks  which  customers  were  supposed  to  sign,  or  the 
amount  purchased  raised,  with  or  without  the  connivance 
of  the  purchaser. 

But  the  drug-store  was  by  no  means  the  only  source  of 


OTHER   ILLICIT   SALES.  115 

supply.  Secret  and  illicit  sales  were  common.  The  amount 
of  supervision  and  espionage  necessary  to  prevent  them  was 
beyond  the  reach  of  municipalities,  even  where  there  was  a 
disposition  to  suppress  illicit  traffic.  The  schemes  adopted 
in  order  to  avoid  detection  were  varied  and  ingenious.  The 
man  who  went  around  with  a  concealed  bottle  upon  his 
person,  and  dispensed  drinks  of  the  vilest  composition  in 
back  alleys,  was  known  as  a  "  boot-legger."  Few  dealers 
sold  openly.  They  had  a  store  of  liquor  in  one  place,  from 
which  hidden  pipes  conveyed  it  to  another,  where  it  was 
dispensed  ;  the  faucets  through  which  it  was  drawn  were 
cunningly  placed,  out  of  sight,  in  the  most  extraordinary 
places.  Or  the  liquor  was  in  a  cellar  or  sub-cellar,  beneath 
a  secret  trap-door,  and  was  sent  up,  on  receipt  of  the  price, 
by  means  of  a  concealed  hoist  or  dumb  waiter  ;  or  a  step  in 
a  stairway  was  so  constructed  as  to  lift  up,  on  hinges,  and 
reveal  a  well-filled  glass  ;  or  the  glass  was  sent  in  through 
a  partition  wall  by  means  of  a  revolving  closet.  There 
was  no  end  to  these  devices,  in  most  of  which  the  customer 
did  not  see  the  man  who  supplied  the  liquor,  nor  the  dealer 
the  man  who  drank  it.  But  there  were  also  open  bars  in 
barns  and  stables  ;  and  mysterious  invitations  were  extended 
to  the  thirsty-looking  to  enter  at  the  front  or  back  door  of 
private  dwellings,  generally  of  a  mean  sort,  in  the  outlying 
suburbs  of  the  larger  towns  ;  the  women  in  these  houses 
were  not  always  chaste.  The  practice  of  "  treating  "  be- 
came also  a  popular  method  of  avoiding  the  necessity  for 
violation  of  the  law.  Closets  in  oftices  and  counting-rooms 
were  unlocked  for  the  benefit  of  favored  guests,  the  supply 
in  which  had  been  regularly  imported,  we  may  suppose, 
from  outside  the  State. 

In  rural  and  temperate  communities  these  evils  did  not 
exist.  The  question  is  whether  they  would  have  existed 
there,  under  a  license  law.  Some  think  that  they  would, 
others  that  they  would  not.      But  the  fact  is  indisputable 


116  THE    HISTOEY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

that  the  open  saloon  was  nearly  everywhere  wiped  out. 
The  anti-prohibitionists  said  that,  in  driving  the  bottle  out, 
the  prohibitionists  had  driven  it  in.  The  prohibitionists 
replied  that  the  abolition  of  the  saloon  was  a  clear  gain  ; 
that  home  drinking  would  never,  under  a  prohibitory  law, 
become  the  general  rule ;  and  that  the  illegal  sale  of  stimu- 
lants must  be  suppressed. 

Meanwhile,  the  breweries  were  not  suppressed.  They 
insisted  upon  compensation  for  the  pecuniary  loss  caused  by 
the  law.  They  fought  it  in  the  courts  upon  this  ground, 
and  held  on,  pending  the  final  decision  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  expecting  ultimate  reimburse- 
ment. The  case  in  which  this  decision  was  rendered,  De- 
cember 5,  1887,  originated  not  in  Iowa  but  in  Kansas. 
The  finding  of  the  court  of  last  resort  was  in  favor  of  the 
Kansas  prohibitory  law.  The  questions  raised  in  the  Iowa 
cases  were  very  nearly  identical.  The  court  held  that 
compensation  to  brewers  and  distillers  was  not  necessary. 
The  promulgation  of  this  opinion  was  followed  by  an 
immediate  cessation  of  the  manufacture  of  malt  liquors  in 
Iowa. 

The  attitude  of  many  prohibitionists  to  the  manufacture 
of  whiskey  by  the  International  Distillery  at  Des  Moines 
had  furnished  their  opponents  with  much  material  for  sar- 
castic comment.  The  distinction  between  the  moral  guilt 
of  manufacturing  for  export  and  for  home  consumption  is 
too  fine  for  a  plain  man  to  comprehend.  Yet  there  were 
men  with  whom  the  financial  argument  in  favor  of  man- 
ufacture for  export  outweighed  the  love  of  ethical  consis- 
tency. The  annual  product  of  this  distillery  was  about 
4,000,000  gallons  of  alcohol,  high  wines,  and  cologne  spir- 
its, in  making  which  it  afforded  a  home  market  for  about 
1,000,000  bushels  of  corn,  rye,  and  malt.  It  fed  about 
4,000  head  of  cattle.  The  revenue  paid  by  it  into  the 
United  States  treasury  was  very  nearly  $1,750,000,  and  its 


THE   INTERNATIONAL  DISTILLERY.  117 

pay-roll  was  more  than  $126,000  a  year.  Sales  were  made 
either  through  an  agent  in  the  city  of  New  York,  or  upon 
orders  by  mail  or  telegraph  direct  from  customers.  In 
either  event  the  alcohol  was  shipped,  and  a  draft  drawn 
upon  the  purchaser  for  the  amount,  which,  with  bill  of  lad- 
ing attached,  was  forwarded  through  a  local  bank.  These 
drafts  were,  in  all  cases,  drawn  upon  persons  outside  the 
State.  Beer  was  not  manufactured  in  Iowa  for  export; 
hence  it  was  asserted  that  the  prohibitory  law  crushed  the 
brewer  but  protected  the  distiller,  although,  in  fact,  the  law 
was  the  same  for  both.  Either  could  manufacture  for  ex- 
port, or  for  legitimate  use  (not  as  a  beverage),  within  the 
State.  But  the  black  smoke  from  the  tall  distillery  chim- 
ney was  blown  into  the  faces  of  the  friends  of  the  law. 
Since  this  distillery  was  not  a  member  of  the  Western  Ex- 
port Association,  the  trust  was  anxious  to  close  it.  Tlie 
law  gave  that  organization  its  opportunity.  A  petition  was 
filed  in  the  Circuit  Court  by  two  prohibitionists,  asserting 
that  the  distillery  was  a  nuisance,  and  praying  for  its  abate- 
ment. The  judge  refused  the  injunction,  but  it  was  granted 
on  an  application  to  the  District  Court.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  issued  a  supersedeas,  suspending  the 
injunction  for  sixty  days,  in  order  to  allow  the  distillery 
to  dispose  of  its  cattle  and  make  the  necessary  preparations 
for  closing.  Meanwhile,  the  "■  capacity  "  was  sold  to  the 
whiskey  pool  for  $80,000  per  annum,  and  the  establishment 
shut  down.  At  the  next  term  of  the  State  Supreme  Court 
a  decision  was  rendered,  sustaining  the  action  of  the  District 
Court,  in  which  it  was  held  that  the  manufacture  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  for  export,  for  any  but  the  four  specified 
legitimate  uses,  is  in  violation  of  the  statute,  and  that  the 
statute  is  not  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  State  nor 
in  conflict  with  the  Federal  Constitution.  On  an  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  consistency  of 
the   law   with  the  Federal  Constitution   was    affirmed,   in 


118  THE   HISTOKY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

October,  1888.  The  property  was  in  the  end  sold,  and 
converted  into   a  malt-house. 

The  closing  of  this  distillery  was  the  occasion  of  consid- 
erable dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  Republicans  who  were 
not  zealous  prohibitionists,  and  even  of  some  prohibitionists 
who  did  not  care  to  carry  on  a  temperance  crusade  beyond 
the  borders  of  the  State.  The  popular  disapproval  of  the 
methods  adopted  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Clark  law  was 
very  pronounced.  It  was  charged  that  its  enforcement  had 
*'  fallen  into  the  hands  of  a  few  corrupt  constables  and  their 
allies,  —  a  few  complacent  justices  of  the  peace,  —  and  that 
the  prosecutions  carried  on  by  them  were  for  private  gain 
and  had  impoverished  the  county  treasury."  There  was  so 
much  truth  in  this  charge,  that  some  of  the  worst  offenders 
were,  in  1888,  indicted.  There  were  also  indications  of  a 
diminution  of  the  strength  of  the  Republican  party  at  the 
polls,  which  many  Republicans  attributed  to  its  attitude  on 
prohibition.  The  Republican  majority  over  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate,  which  in  1881  was  59,984,  had  fallen  in 
1885  to  6,986 ;  while  the  Republican  majority  over  all 
other  candidates,  which  in  1881  was  31,858,  had  fallen  in 
1885  to  5,211.  It  was  therefore  said  that  prohibition  had 
cost  the  Republican  party  25,000  votes.  The  law  of  1886 
was  so  much  more  stringent  than  that  of  1884,  that  it  was 
supposed  by  many,  especially  those  who  did  not  very 
heartily  approve  of  it,  to  foreshadow  further  losses  in  1887, 
and  this  anticipation  was  realized. 

At  the  election  that  year,  the  anti-prohibition  or  so- 
called  "  Liberal  "  Republicans  in  Polk  and  Marshall  coun- 
ties nominated  two  independent  candidates  for  the  legisla- 
ture. The  Democrats  indorsed  them,  and  the  "  fusion  "  was 
partially  successful.  Mr.  A.  B.  Cummins  (the  one  of  these 
two  who  was  elected)  declared  himself  a  Republican,  but 
not  a  prohibitionist.  Early  in  1890  an  "  anti-saloon " 
Republican  conference  met  in  Iowa  City,  which  resolved  to 


"  OKIGINAL    PACKAGE     HOUSES."  119 

call  a  general  convention  of  Liberal  Repuljlicans  at  Des 
Moines  in  April.  Mr.  Cummins  was  made  cliairman  of  its 
Executive  Committee.  In  1892  he  was  elected  temporary 
cliairman  of  the  State  Republican  Convention,  which  elected 
him  by  acclamation  delegate-at-large  to  the  National  Conven- 
tion ;  in  the  Presidential  campaign  of  that  year  his  name 
was  at  the  head  of  the  electoral  ticket.  The  spectacle  of  a 
successful  revolt  within  the  party,  the  election  of  a  Re- 
publican anti-prohibitionist  to  the  legislature  by  the  aid  of 
Democratic  votes,  and  the  subsequent  honors  paid  to  the 
leader  of  this  revolt,  substantially  encouraged  the  anti-pro- 
hibition Republicans,  and  thus  contributed  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  events  which  followed. 

About  this  time  a  new  method  of  circumventing  prohi- 
bition was  tried,  with  great  temporary  success.  The  liquor 
interest  established  "  delivery  depots  "  or  "  original  package 
houses."  The  Code  forbade  common  carriers  to  bring 
liquor  into  the  State  without  first  having  been  furnished 
with  a  certificate,  signed  by.  the  proper  official,  that  the 
consignee  was  authorized  under  the  law  to  sell  liquor,  not 
to  be  drunk  as  a  beverage,  but  for  legitimate  uses.  In  the 
case  of  Bowman  v.  The  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Rail- 
road, the  United  States  Supreme  Court  held  that  this  pro- 
vision was  void,  because  it  was  an  interference  with  the 
freedom  of  commerce  between  the  States,  a  matter  over 
which  the  federal  government  has,  under  the  Constitution, 
exclusive  jurisdiction.  The  decision  in  this  case  was  ren- 
dered March  19,  1888. 

The  Code  contained  another  section,  in  which  it  was 
said  :  — 

"  Nothing  in  this  chapter  shall  be  construed  to  forbid  the 
sale,  by  the  importer  thereof,  of  foreign  intoxicating  liquor, 
imported  under  the  authority  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
regarding  the  importation  of  such  liquors,  and  in  accordance 
with  such  laws  :  Provided,  that  the  said  liquor,  at  the  time  of 


120  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

such  sale  by  said  importer,  remains  in  the  original  casks  or 
packages  in  which  it  was  by  him  imported,  and  in  quantities 
not  less  than  the  quantities  in  which  tlie  laws  of  tlie  United 
States  require  such  liquors  to  be  imported,  and  is  sold  by  him 
in  said  original  casks  or  packages  and  in  said  quantities  only." 

The  section  quoted  would,  under  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  have  authorized  sales  in  original  packages 
without  any  restriction  as  to  the  use  to  be  made  of  the 
liquor.  But  the  pharmacy  act  of  1888  formally  repealed 
this  section.  The  constitutionality  of  such  repeal  was 
questioned.  Proceedings  were  instituted  against  the  origi- 
nal package  houses.  Such  a  house  was  sought  to  be  en- 
joined in  the  Superior  Court  of  Keokuk  County  as  a  nui- 
sance, the  dealer  not  being  a  registered  pharmacist  nor  the 
holder  of  a  permit  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  Tlie 
court  held  that  beer  sold  by  the  case  was  sold  in  the 
original  package,  and  that  such  sale  was  protected  by  the 
laws  regulating  interstate  commerce ;  but  that  whiskey  put 
up  in  pint  or  quart  bottles,  and  packed  in  boxes  or  barrels 
for  shipment,  if  the  importer  opened  the  barrels  or  boxes, 
took  out  the  bottles  and  placed  them  upon  a  shelf  for  sale 
by  the  bottle,  was  liable  to  confiscation  ;  that  the  opening 
of  the  original  package  completed  the  transaction  as  a 
matter  of  interstate  commerce ;  and  that  subsequent  deal- 
ings with  the  liquor  were  governed  by  the  statutes  of  Iowa. 
This  case  was  taken  by  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  State,  and  was  the  occasion  of  a  decision  (February  7, 
1889)  in  which  it  was  held  that  "  when  property  purchased 
in  another  State  is  transported  to  this  State  and  there 
delivered  to  the  purchaser,  the  transaction,  in  so  far  as  it 
is  governed  by  the  provisions  for  the  regulation  of  com- 
merce between  the  States,  is  at  an  end.  The  sale  and 
delivery  are  then  consummated,  and  the  property  becomes 
at  once  subject  to  the  laws  which  the  State  has  enacted 
governing  its  use  or  disposition."     Hence,  the  sales  of  both 


"THE   REIGN   OF  THE   CORK-SCREW."  121 

beer  and  whiskey,  as  conducted  by  tlie  defendant,  were 
illegal,  and  subjected  him  to  punishment  for  nuisance. 

In  the  case  of  Leisey  et  al.  v.  Hardin,  the  plaintiffs,  who 
were  brewers  in  Peoria,  Illinois,  shipped  beer  in  kegs  and 
cases  to  an  agent  at  Keokuk,  by  whom  it  was  sold  in  un- 
broken packages  as  received.  The  beer  was  seized.  The 
Superior  Court  held  that  the  statute  forbidding  the  sale 
of  liquor  by  an  importer  in  the  original  package  was  con- 
trary to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  void. 
The  Supreme  Court  reversed  this  judgment,  October  4, 
1889,  following  the  precedent  established  in  Collins  v. 
Hills.  Subsequently  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  reversed  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Iowa.  Its  decision,  rendered  April  28,  1890,  was  that 
Leisey  et  al.  "  had  the  right  to  import  into  Iowa  beer  to 
be  sold  in  original  packages  ;  and  they  had  the  right  to 
sell  it,  by  which  act  alone  it  would  become  mingled  in  the 
common  mass  of  property  within  the  State.  Up  to  that 
time,  in  the  absence  of  Congressional  permission  to  do  so, 
the  State  had  not  power  to  interfere,  by  seizure  or  any  other 
action,  in  prohibition  of  importation  or  sale  by  the  non- 
resident importer." 

This  decision  ushered  in  what  was  facetiously  termed 
"the  reign  of  the  cork-screw."  All  the  old  evils  of  the 
saloon  system  returned  with  augmented  violence.  Many 
towns  in  the  State  suffered  open  drunkenness,  that  had 
been  free  from  it  for  years. ^ 

1  See  description  of  the  condition  of  the  State,  in  the  decision  rendered 
by  Judge  Cakhvcll  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  E.  D.  Arkansas, 
October  31,  1890,  in  re  Van  Vliet.  "The  retail  li(iuor  trafflc  was  practi- 
callj^  reestablished,  and  in  many  cases  by  the  most  irresponsible  and  un- 
suitable persons,  who  were  not  citizens  of  the  State  and  were  indifferent 
to  its  welfare.  Peaceful  and  quiet  communities,  from  which  the  sale  of 
liquor  had  been  l)anish('d  for  years,  were  suddenly  attlicted  with  all  the 
evils  of  the  liquor  tratlic.  The  seats  of  learning  were  invaded  by  the 
liquor-vender,  and  the  youth  of  the  State  gathered  there  for  instruction 
were  corrupted  and  demoralized,  and  disorder,  violence,  and  crime 
reigned  where  only  peace  and  order  had  been  known  before.    The  invaded 


122  THE    HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

Thereupon  Congress  passed  a  bill  (introduced  by  Senator 
Wilson  of  Iowa)  in  the  following  words :  — 

"  That  all  fermented,  distilled,  and  other  intoxicating  liquors 
or  liquids  transported  into  any  state  or  territory  or  remaining 
the'rein  shall,  upon  arrival  in  such  state  or  territory,  be  subject 
to  the  operation  and  effect  of  the  laws  of  such  state  or  territory, 
enacted  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  power,  to  the  same  extent 
and  in  the  same  manner  as  though  such  liquids  or  liquor  had 
been  produced  in  such  state  or  territory,  and  shall  not  be  ex- 
empt therefrom  by  reason  of  being  introduced  in  the  original 
package  or  otherwise." 

It  was  estimated  that  this  act  closed  15,000  "  original 
package  holes  "  in  Iowa.  There  was  scarcely  a  town  in  the 
State  in  Avhich  they  had  not  been  opened,  between  April 
28,  the  date  of  the  Supreme  Court  decision,  and  July  22, 
the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill  —  a  period  of 
three  months,  less  one  week. 

The  validity  of  the  Wilson  bill  was  disputed  on  various 
grounds,  principally  because  it  "  could  not  vivify  a  dead 
statute."  This  point  was  raised  in  an  appeal  from  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  Kansas, 
in  re  Eahrer.  Rahrer  was  the  agent  at  Topeka  of  a  whole- 
sale liquor  house  in  Kansas  City,  Missouri.  His  attorneys 
argued  that  "  an  unconstitutional  act  is  in  legal  contempla- 
tion as  though  it  had  never  been  passed ;  the  Kansas  statute 
prohibiting  the  sale  of  imported  liquor  was  unconstitutional ; 
if  void  when  passed,  it  was  still  void."  Furthermore,  Con- 
gress itself,  they  said,  could  not  allow  the  States  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  imported  liquor  shall  be  an  article  of 

communities  were  powerless  to  protect  themselves.  They  could  neither 
regulate,  tax,  restrain,  nor  prohibit  this  traffic.  The  courts  held,  and 
rightly  so,  that  the  importer  and  vendor  of  original  packages  was  not 
subject  to  the  state  law,  and  that  any  application  of  the  state  law  to  him 
would  be  an  invasion  of  his  rights  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  until  (Jongress,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power  to  regulate  commerce, 
should  withdraw  the  protecting  shield  of  that  instrument  from  original 
packages  that  had  reached  the  State  where  they  were  destined  for  con- 
sumption or  sale." 


A  DEMOCKATIC  GOVERNOR.  123 

commerce;  if  it  could,  then  it  might  delegate  its  entire 
commercial  power  to  the  States.  The  Supreme  Court  de- 
cided that  the  Kansas  prohihitory  law  was  an  act  within 
the  competency  of  the  State  to  pass,  hut  tliat  it  could  not 
operate  to  prevent  the  sale  of  imported  liquor  prior  to  the 
passage  by  Congress  of  the  Wilson  bill ;  that  bill,  however, 
removed  the  impediment  to  the  enforcement  of  the  state 
laws  in  respect  to  imported  packages  in  their  original  condi- 
tion, created  by  the  absence  of  a  specific  federal  statute  ;  it 
did  not  confer  upon  the  State  any  power  which  the  latter 
did  not  already  possess,  but  simply  allowed  imported  prop- 
erty to  fall  at  once,  upon  arrival,  within  the  local  jurisdic- 
tion. Upon  the  publication  of  this  decision,  the  original 
package  houses  of  Iowa  closed  their  doors. 

The  Republican  Convention  in  1888  congratulated  the 
people  of  the  State  "  on  the  temperance  legislation  .  .  . 
which  has  given  to  Iowa  the  best  prohibitory  law  in  the 
United  States.  To  the  credit  of  the  Republican  party  .  .  , 
no  backward  step  has  been  taken,  and  none  will  be  taken, 
on  a  question  so  vital  to  the  moral  welfare  of  all  our  com- 
munities." It  liked  this  phrase  so  well,  that  it  said  again, 
in  1889 :  "  We  reaffirm  the  past  utterances  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  of  Iowa  upon  prohibition  .  .  .  upon  which  there 
should  be  no  backward  step."  The  Democratic  Convention 
arraigned  the  Republican  party  "  for  changing  the  phar- 
macy laws,  by  which  a  great  hardship  and  gross  indignity 
has  been  imposed  upon  honorable  pharmacists  and  upon 
all  the  people  requiring  liquor  for  the  actual  necessities  of 
medicine."  It  again  demanded  the  enactment  of  a  carefully 
guarded  license  law,  with  local  option  by  cities  and  towns. 

In  1889  the  Democratic  party  nominated  for  the  gov- 
ernorship Horace  Boies,  an  ex-Republican  and  an  opponent 
of  prohibition.  Both  parties  professed  to  be  strongly  op- 
posed to  railway  monopoly,  and  on  this  subject  there  was 
not  enough  difference  between  them  to  justify  making  the 


124  THE    HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

issue  prominent.  Up  to  this  time  the  raih-oads  had  taken 
an  active  part  in  state  politics,  and  had  sought  protection  at 
the  hands  of  the  party  in  power.  The  result  had  rather 
disappointed  them.  They  therefore  claimed  to  have  changed 
their  tactics,  determining  to  keep  out  of  politics  and  not 
influence  their  employees  in  favor  of  either  party.  This 
change  of  attitude  on  their  part  is  said  to  have  contributed 
to  the  election  of  Governor  Boies,  but  he  made  his  canvass 
as  an  anti-prohibitionist,  everywhere  forcing  this  issue  to 
the  front ;  and  he  was  elected  by  a  plurality  of  1,573  over 
his  Republican  rival.  ^ 

Mr.  Boies's  election  was  regarded  as  an  indication  that 
the  prohibition  movement  had  lost  favor  with  the  people. 
It  gave  fresh  courage  to  the  independent  or  liberal  Repub- 
licans, and  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  party  to  adminis- 
ter to  them  the  discipline  which  it  might  otherwise  have 
attempted.  During  the  following  session  of  the  General 
Assembly,  the  anti-saloon  Republicans  held  a  meeting  in 
Des  Moines,  which  was  presided  over  by  Mr.  George  E. 
Hubble,  a  total  abstainer  and  prohibitionist,  who  had  voted 
for  the  constitutional  amendment.  He  had  also  actively 
fought  saloons  in  Scott  County.  But  in  his  opening  address 
he  said  that  the  law  had  been  in  that  county  a  dismal  fail- 
ure. "  The  will  of  the  people  is  against  it.  The  officials 
elected  are  hostile  to  it.  Grand  juries  composed  of  good 
men  refuse  to  indict  the  guilty,  in  the  face  of  the  most 
overwhelming  evidence.  Petit  juries  refuse  to  convict  or 
to  find  a  verdict  for  damages  in  court  actions  under  the 
law.  Two  hundred  saloons,  with  open  doors  and  with  no 
effort  at  concealment,  are  selling  in  violation  of  the  law. 
The  City  Council  of  Davenport  resorted  to  the  degrading 
method  of   evasion  by  taxing  the  saloons    $100,  and  per- 

^  Tliis  is  the  view  taken  by  Demncvats  and  l)y  "railniail"  lte]iiilili- 
cans  in  Iowa,  but  not  by  "anti-monopoly"  Kei)iil)licans,  who  tliink  tliat 
Governor  Hoies  had  the  quiet  support  of  the  railway  corporations;  they 
make  a  point  of  his  reduced  majority  when  reelected. 


THE   BREAK-DOWN   OF   THE   LAW.  125 

mitting  the  sale  of  *  beverages  not  prohibited  by  law.' " 
The  resolutions  adopted  by  this  convention  were  strongly 
anti-prohibition.  It  declared  that  "  the  Republican  party 
cannot  justify  its  further  support  of  the  law  as  a  party 
measure,"  and  urged  the  General  Assembly  "  so  to  amend 
the  prohibitory  liquor  law  as  to  give  to  communities  that 
desire  so  to  act  the  power,  subject  to  a  minimum  license  to 
be  fixed  by  the  legislature,  to  regulate  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  through  the  medium  of  high  license." 

A  resolution  for  resubmission  of  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment which  was  offered  in  1890,  both  in  the  House  and 
the  Senate,  was  not  adopted ;  but  the  pharmacy  act  of  1888 
was  repealed,  and  a  substitute  for  it  enacted,  Avith  many  of 
the  offensive  features  of  the  former  law  eliminated. 

It  was  beginning  to  be  felt  by  business  men  of  all  par- 
ties that  the  cost  of  prosecution  under  the  prohibitory  law 
was  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  results  attained.  An  in- 
vestigation of  the  records  of  Polk  County  showed,  for  in- 
stance, that  of  $90,000  paid  out  during  the  first  half  of 
1890,  one  third,  namely,  $30,451.23,  had  been  paid  for 
criminal  expenses,  of  which  $11,121.30  went  to  the  jus- 
tices, $11,201.33  to  constables,  $5,524.80  to  witnesses, 
$181  to  jurors,  and  $1,720  to  attorneys  ;  the  bulk  of  this 
enormous  cost  was  for  criminal  proceedings  in  liquor  cases. 
The  "  State  Register,"  commenting  on  this  state  of  affairs, 
said :  — 

"  At  the  present  rate  these  justices  and  constables  will  have 
drawn  $60,000  within  the  year,  and  still  be  unable  to  show  a 
single  place  where  they  have  stopped  the  illegal  sale  of  liquor. 
They  do  not  want  the  illegal  traffic  suppressed,  for  they  are 
getting  rich  by  it.  The  so-called  enforcement  of  prohibition 
is  nothing  but  a  combination  to  plunder  the  county  treasury. 
.  .  .  Why  have  not  the  liquor-sellers  been  arrested  ?  In  many 
instances  a  single  bottle  of  beer  has  been  put  on  trial,  but  not 
often  the  men  who  had  it.  That  lone  bottle  costs  the  people 
of  the  county  seven  dollars  and  a  quarter,  including  fees  to 
witnesses  and  tasters." 


126  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

The  Republican  party  nevertheless  continued  for  an- 
other year  to  utter  the  same  defiant  note  as  in  former  years. 
The  Democrats  in  1891,  encouraged  by  their  success  at  the 
polls  in  1889,  ventured  to  include  in  their  platform  a  dec- 
laration for  license,  omitting  the  former  reference  to  local 
option.  For  this  omission  they  were  roundly  denounced 
by  the  Republicans,  who  declared  :  ''  We  recognize  the  fact 
that  the  control  of  the  next  legislature  by  the  Democratic 
party  means  state-wide  license,  and  the  control  of  the  next 
legislature  by  the  Republican  party  means  continued  op- 
position to  the  behests  of  the  saloon  power  through  the 
maintenance  and  enforcement  of  law."  This  action  was 
not  had  without  strong  opposition  ;  a  minority  report  on 
the  platform  was  submitted,  and  rejected  by  a  majority  of 
only  11  votes. 

The  Democrats  renominated  Governor  Boies,  and  elected 
him  in  1891  by  a  plurality  of  8,213  ;  the  aggregate  major- 
ity against  him  was  5,024.  The  Union  Labor  partj^  cast, 
at  this  election,  more  than  12,000  votes.  The  aggregate 
majority  against  the  Republican  party  was  13,237. 

From  1880  to  1891  the  Republicans  fell  behind,  at  the 
polls,  by  more  than  80,000  votes.  True,  the  four  years  of 
Harrison's  administration  were  years  of  Republican  losses 
throughout  the  Northern  States,  where  prohibition  was  not 
an  issue.  The  year  1892  was  the  year  in  which  Grover 
Cleveland  was  a  second  time  elected  to  the  Presidency. 
In  face  of  that  nomination,  the  Republican  State  Conven- 
tion had  not  a  word  to  say  about  prohibition.  The  Repub- 
lican National  Convention  had  said  :  "  We  sympathize  with 
all  wise  and  legitimate  efforts  to  lessen  and  prevent  the 
evils  of  intemperance  and  promote  morality."  The  Repub- 
licans of  Iowa  affirmed  that  this  ambiguous  declaration  was 
"  broad  enough  and  strong  enough  and  all-sufficient  as  a 
basis  of  union,"  and  said  :  "  There  is  no  test  of  fealty  to 
the  national  Republican  party  other  than  adherence  to  its 


CHANGE  OF  REPUBLICAN   ATTITUDE.  127 

fundamental  principles  announced  in  its  national  plat- 
form." 

The  "  Wine  and  Spirit  Gazette  "  sarcastically  observed  : 
"  The  temperance  plank  of  the  platform  might  with  pro- 
priety have  been  adopted  by  any  liquor  dealers'  associa- 
tion." The  State  Temperance  Alliance  issued  a  circular 
saying,  "  As  an  organization,  we  cannot,  under  our  con- 
stitution, continue  to  support  the  Republican  party."  But 
the  majority  of  30,000  given  by  the  State  of  Iowa  for  Mr. 
Harrison  for  President  in  November  was  the  best  evidence 
of  the  sagacity  of  the  local  Republican  leaders.  After  the 
result  was  known,  the  "State  Register"  said  editorially, 
"  Over  30,000  Republican  voters  have  returned  to  the  fold. 
If  there  is  any  one  who  deserves  credit  for  this  result,  it 
is  Mr.  A.  B.  Cummins." 

The  Republican  convention  of  1893  said  :  "  Prohibition 
is  no  test  of  Republicanism."  It  relegated  the  whole  sub- 
ject to  the  General  Assembly,  "  to  take  such  action  as  it 
may  deem  best,  maintaining  the  present  law  in  those  por- 
tions of  the  State  where  it  is  now  or  can  be  made  efficient, 
and  giving  to  other  localities  such  methods  of  controlling 
and  regulating  the  liquor  traffic  as  will  best  serve  the  cause 
of  temperance  and  morality."  The  Democratic  candidate 
for  governor,  Mr.  Boies  (who  ran  for  the  third  time),  now 
received  174,660  votes,  or  32,934  less  than  in  1891. 

The  year  1893  Avas  characterized  by  a  spirited  discussion 
of  the  new  legislation  to  be  enacted  in  1894.  The  idea 
of  the  mulct  law  was  borrowed  from  Ohio,  and  was  first 
suggested,  in  a  crude  form,  by  the  editor  of  the  Marshall- 
town  "  Times-Republican,"  who  was  an  Ohio  man.  It  was 
gradually  formulated  by  persons  who  took  part  in  the  de- 
bate about  it  in  the  newspapers.  The  bill  originated  in 
the  House,  where  it  had  a  majority  of  eight ;  its  majority 
in  the  Senate  was  only  two.  A  Democratic  senator,  in 
explanation  of  his  vote  against  it,  said:  "The  purpose  of 


128  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION    IN    IOWA. 

the  bill  is  merely  to  relieve  those  in  charge  of  the  Repub- 
lican machine  from  a  perplexing  and  embarrassing  situation. 
Their  leaders  have  been  compelled  to  submit  to  it,  as  the 
best  concession  they  could  get  from  the  prohibition  ele- 
ment. But  it  is  a  serious  blow  to  prohibitionists.  The 
Republican  party  has  at  last  done  what  it  so  long  declared 
that  it  would  not  do :  it  has  legalized  the  saloon.  The 
friends  of  the  bill  have  tried  to  conceal  the  fact  by  the 
use  of  words,  but  the  privilege  attempted  to  be  given  is 
nothing  less  than  license."  A  prohibitionist  said  of  it  : 
"  It  is  to  the  Democratic  bill  as  varioloid  to  small-pox." 
One  member  voted  for  it  because  ''  it  does  not  in  any 
way  tend  to  local  option."  Another  voted  against  it  be- 
cause he  regarded  it  as  "  virtually  a  local  option  bill." 
Others  would  have  preferred  "  a  straight  local  option  bill." 
Another,  seeing  no  probability  of  securing  the  passage  of  a 
satisfactory  local  option  bill,  supported  it,  "  deeming  it 
a  move  in  the  direction  of  the  regulation  and  control  of  the 
liquor  traffic." 

THE    MULCT    LAVS^. 

The  language  of  the  sixteenth  section  of  this  act,  "to 
tax  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  and  to  regulate  and 
control  the  same  "  [approved  March  29,  1894]  is  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

"Nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  in  any  way  con- 
strued to  mean  that  the  business  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  is  in  any  way  legalized,  nor  is  the  same  to  be  con- 
strued in  any  manner  or  form  as  a  license  ;  nor  shall  the 
assessment  or  payment  of  any  tax  for  the  sale  of  liquors 
as  aforesaid  protect  the  wrongdoer  from  any  penalty  now 
provided  by  law,  except  that  on  conditions  hereinafter 
provided  certain  penalties  may  be  suspended." 

The  essential  features  of  the  law  are  found  in  the  first, 
seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  sections. 


THE   MULCT   LAW.  129 

The  first  section  provides  for  the  assessment  of  a  tax  of  $600 
per  annum  against  every  person,  partnership,  or  corporation, 
other  than  registered  pharmacists,  holding  permits,  who  are 
engaged  in  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  ;  this  tax  is  assessed 
also  against  the  real  property  and  the  owner  thereof  within  or 
whereon  such  liquors  are  sold  ;  and  the  tax  is  made  a  perpetual 
lien  upon  all  property,  both  real  and  personal,  used  in  the 
business  or  connected  with  it. 

The  seventeenth  section,  which  applies  only  to  cities  of  5,000 
inhabitants  or  more,  makes  the  i^ayment  of  the  tax  a  bar  to 
proceedings  under  the  prohibitory  law,  but  only  upon  compli- 
ance with  specified  conditions,  as  follows :  The  person  who 
pays  the  tax  is  required  to  file  with  the  county  auditor  a  certi- 
fied copy  of  a  resolution  by  the  city  council,  consenting  to  the 
sale  of  liquor,  which  must  be  accompanied  by  a  written  state- 
ment of  consent  from  all  the  resident  freeholders  owning  prop- 
erty within  fifty  feet  of  the  premises  where  said  business  is 
carried  on,  and  by  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  if3,000,  with  two  quali- 
fied sureties,  neither  of  whom  shall  be  surety  on  any  other  like 
bond ;  the  said  bond  to  be  approved  by  the  clerk  of  the  district 
court  and  conditioned  upon  the  faithful  compliance  with  all 
the  resti-ictions  imposed  upon  the  traffic  by  law.  These  re- 
strictions, in  addition  to  forbidding  sales  to  minors,  di'unkards, 
intoxicated  persons,  graduates  of  the  Keeley  cure,  and  to  per- 
sons whose  near  relatives,  by  written  notice,  forbid  such  sale, 
require  that  the  sale  shall  be  carried  on  in  a  single  room,  hav- 
ing but  one  exit  or  entrance,  and  that  opening  upon  a  public 
business  street.  The  bar  where  the  liquors  are  furnished  must 
be  in  plain  view  from  the  street,  unobstructed  by  screens, 
blinds,  painted  windows,  or  any  other  device.  There  must  be 
no  chairs,  benches,  nor  any  other  furniture  in  front  of  the  bar, 
and  only  such  behind  the  bar  as  is  necessary  for  the  attendants. 
Gambling  or  gaming  with  cards,  dice,  billiards,  or  any  other 
device,  also  music,  dancing,  and  every  other  form  of  amuse- 
ment or  entertainment,  are  forbidden,  either  in  the  room 
•where  said  business  is  carried  on,  or  in  any  adjoining  room  or 
building  controlled  by  the  person,  partnership,  or  corporation 
carrying  on  the  business.  No  obscene  or  impure  decorations 
or  inscriptions,  placards,  or  any  such  thing  are  allowed,  nor 
may  any  female  person  be  employed  in  the  place.  The  hours 
of  sale  are  restricted  to  the  portion  of  tlie  day  between  five 
o'clock  in  the  morning  and  ten  o'clock  at  night,  and  the  place 


130  THE   HISTOKY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN   IOWA. 

must  be  closed  on  Sunday,  on  election  day,  on  all  legal  holi- 
days, and  on  the  evenings  of  such  days.  But  before  the  pay- 
ment of  tax  can  operate  as  a  bar  to  prosecution  under  the 
prohibitory  act,  even  where  all  of  these  conditions  are  complied 
with,  there  must  first  have  been  filed  with  the  county  auditor 
a  written  statement  of  consent  signed  by  a  majority  of  the 
voters  residing  in  the  city  who  voted  at  the  last  general  elec- 
tion. 

By  the  eighteenth  section,  in  order  that  any  city  or  town  of 
less  than  5,000  inhabitants  may  come  within  the  provisions  of 
the  act,  there  must  be  first  filed  with  the  county  auditor  a  state- 
ment of  consent  signed  by  sixty-five  per  cent,  of  all  the  legal 
voters  who  voted  at  the  last  preceding  general  election,  resid- 
ing within  the  county,  outside  of  the  corporate  limits  of  cities 
having  a  populatioii  of  5,000  inhabitants  or  over ;  but  no  such 
statement  of  consent  can  be  construed  as  a  bar  to  prosecution 
in  incorporated  towns  situated  in  townships  of  which  less  than 
a  majority  of  the  voters  of  the  township,  including  the  incor- 
porated town,  have  signed  the  statement  of  consent,  nor  in  any 
incorporated  town  in  which  a  majority'  of  the  voters  do  not 
sign  the  said  statement. 

With  the  passage  of  this  measiire  ends  for  the  present 
the  history  of  temperance  legislation  in  Iowa.  The  only 
thing  remaining  to  be  said  on  the  subject  is  that  both 
houses  agreed  to  a  joint  resolution  to  resubmit  to  a  popular 
vote  the  constitutional  prohibitory  amendment. 

THE    RESULT    OF    PROHIBITION    IN    IOWA. 

The  prohibition  experiment  has  probably  never  had  a 
fairer  test,  nor  a  test  under  more  favorable  conditions,  than 
in  Iowa.  It  is  an  agricultural  State  with  no  large  cities ; 
the  largest  is  Des  Moines,  which  in  1890  had  50,093  in- 
habitants. The  population  is  mainly  Puritan  by  descent, 
with  inherited  Puritan  habits  and  traditions.  Public  senti- 
ment is,  and  has  been  from  an  early  day,  strongly  opposed 
to  intemperance.  None  of  the  surrounding  States,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  Missouri,  has  had  so  small  a  percent- 
age of  foreign  immigrants.      In  consequence  of  the  decision 


A  FAIR   TEST   OF  PROHIBITION,  131 

by  the  Supreme  Court  that  local  option  under  the  Consti- 
tution is  harred,  every  voter  has  been  forced  to  declare 
himself  for  general  license  or  for  prohibition.  The  prohibi- 
tionists have  therefore  been  able  to  swell  the  number  of 
their  nominal  adherents  by  representing  that  opposition  to 
prohibition  meant  subserviency  to  the  saloon.  The  cause  of 
prohibition  has  had,  besides,  the  inestimable  practical  advan- 
tage of  an  alliance,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  the  politi- 
cal party  in  power.  More  than  that,  it  was  for  years  the 
dominant  faction  in  that  party,  dictating  its  platform,  and 
controlling  its  legislation  in  opposition  to  the  liquor  inter- 
est. It  held  this  vantage-ground  for  ten  years,  a  period 
long  enough  to  demonstrate  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  the 
attempt  to  restrain  and  govern  an  animal  appetite  by  law. 
The  end  was  defeat. 

The  fundamental  obstacle  to  success  was  the  difficulty  of 
finding  a  solid  ethical  basis  for  the  movement.  When  a 
political  party  formulates  a  declaration  of  principles  and 
starts  out,  as  the  State  Temperance  Convention  of  1885  did, 
with  the  bald  assertion  that  "  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage  is  a  crime  per  se,"  it  not 
only  contradicts  every  established  principle  of  law,  but 
shocks  the  sentiment  of  justice,  which  cannot  accept  the 
doctrine  thus  enunciated  without  including  in  the  same 
sweeping  condemnation  the  man  who  buys  as  well  as  the 
man  who  sells  wine  or  beer.  If  the  movement,  on  the  con- 
trary, had  been  founded  upon  the  doctrine  that  the  State, 
in  the  exercise  of  its  police  powers,  has  the  right  to  sup- 
press the  liquor  traffic,  and  that  its  suppression  is  expedient 
upon  the  ground  of  public  policy,  its  partisans  would  have 
made  what  seemed  to  many  of  them  a  fatal  concession. 
Moderate  men  in  the  prohibition  ranks  explained  that  they 
aimed  at  nothing  more  than  the  closing  of  dramshops. 
They  did  not  propose  to  deprive  sober  citizens  of  mature 
age  of  the  right  to  regulate  their  diet.     The  attempt,  how- 


132  THE    HISTORY   OF   PKOHIBITION   IN    IOWA. 

ever,  to  make  and  enforce  a  statutory  rule  broad  enough  to 
cover  the  case  of  the  drunkard,  and  yet  allow  for  the  neces- 
sary exceptions,  involved  such  inconsistency  as  to  render 
the  rule  practically  of  little  effect. 

The  two  loopholes  in  the  law  were  the  pharmacist  and 
the  importer.  The  importer  was  protected  by  the  federal 
Constitution  ;  the  State  imagined  that  it  could  watch  and 
control  the  pharmacist.  But  it  soon  appeared  that  the  drug- 
store was  even  harder  to  regulate  than  the  saloon,  and  that 
men  would  drink  in  a  drug-store  who  would  not,  under  a 
license  system,  have  drunk  at  a  public  bar.  The  business 
of  selling  drugs  became,  in  a  city  like  Des  Moines,  more 
profitable  than  banking.  Under  the  cloak  of  a  pretended 
medical  necessity  —  and  in  many  cases  even  this  flimsy  sub- 
terfuge was  lacking  —  liquor  continued  to  be  bought  and 
sold  as  a  beverage,  even  where  there  were  no  saloons.  As 
to  the  importation  of  liquor,  it  required  a  special  federal 
statute  to  bring  the  importer  under  the  operation  of  the  pro- 
hibitory law  and  prevent  him  from  selling  within  the  State, 
by  the  bottle,  Avhat  he  could  buy  outside  and  order  shipped 
to  his  address  in  any  quantity  and  in  any  sized  packages 
that  he  pleased.  The  evil  of  the  original  package  house  for 
a  few  months  was  greater  than  that  of  the  licensed  saloon 
had  ever  been. 

But  these  two  sources  of  supply  were  inadequate  to  meet 
the  demand.  Two  other  methods  of  obtaining  liquor  in 
unlimited  quantities  were  open  to  the  thirsty  and  the  law- 
less. There  were  counties  in  which  the  prohibitory  law 
was  boldly  disregarded.  Saloons  continued  to  ply  their  for- 
bidden trade  without  the  slightest  attempt  at  concealment, 
not  only  in  river  towns  on  the  eastern  and  western  boun- 
daries of  the  State,  but  at  various  points  in  the  interior. 
These  saloons  were  at  first  unregulated,  and  paid  no  tax, 
but  the  communities  in  which  they  existed  passed  local 
ordinances  subjecting  them  to  slight  restrictions,  and  com- 


DEGEADATION   OF   PUBLIC   OFFICERS.  133 

pelling  them  to  contribute  to  the  municipal  revenue  ia 
defiance  of  the  general  statute.  Or,  if  the  authorities  feared 
to  go  so  far,  they  fined  the  retail  dealers  at  stated  intervals, 
and  at  other  times  let  them  alone,  thus  accomplishing  by 
indirection  the  same  result.  But  where  public  sentiment, 
on  the  contrary,  sustained  the  prohibitory  law,  and  an  at- 
tempt was  made  by  the  authorities  to  enforce  it,  a  contra- 
band traffic  was  maintained  in  cellars  and  barns  and  alleys, 
and  in  houses  on  the  outskirts  of  the  towns,  —  a  fugitive 
and  skulking  traffic  carried  on  in  the  spirit  and  by  the 
methods  of  the  smuggler,  difficult  to  detect  and  impossible 
to  suppress. 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  consider  another  obstacle  to  the 
success  of  prohibition,  in  the  difficulty  of  enforcing  the 
provisions  of  the  law.  Officers  elected  by  a  constituency 
unfriendly  to  prohibition  neglected  to  do  their  duty,  and  it 
became  necessary  for  individuals  to  secure  evidence  and  in- 
stitute complaint.  Searchers  had  to  be  hired  and  paid  from 
funds  secured  by  subscription.  The  amount  of  such  funds 
was  limited,  and  the  number  of  prosecutions  insignificant  in 
comparison  with  that  of  the  known  offenders.  To  cure  this 
defect,  the  law  was  so  amended  as  to  insure  payment  to  in- 
formers and  to  attorneys  engaged  for  the  prosecution.  The 
attorneys'  fees  were  charged  up  against  the  defense.  Fees 
were  allowed  to  searchers,  to  witnesses,  to  tasters,  and  even 
for  the  destruction  of  the  confiscated  bottles.  The  character 
of  the  searchers  was  for  the  most  part  low,  and  their  conduct 
was  regulated  by  the  profit  accruing  to  themselves  ;  in  ad- 
dition to  the  sums  realized  from  legal  compliance  with  the 
letter  of  the  law,  many  of  them  derived  a  handsome  income 
from  blackmail.  In  some  instances  the  justices  of  the  peace 
who  presided  over  the  trial  of  liquor  cases  earned  more 
than  the  salaries  paid  to  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
The  sanctity  of  private  life  was  violated.  AVitnesses  per- 
jured themselves  upon  the  stand.      Juries  refused  to  render 


134  THE   HISTOKY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN  IOWA, 

a  verdict  of  guilty,  even  where  the  testimony  was  ample 
and  uncontradicted.  If  the  case  was  taken  before  the 
grand  jury,  it  was  often  impossible  to  secure  an  indictment. 
While  the  statutes  were  constantly  augmenting  in  severity, 
the  public  opinion  which  alone  could  give  them  validity 
was  crystallizing  in  opposition  to  their  enforcement.  The 
popular  respect  for  law  rapidly  declined  before  the  spec- 
tacle of  the  impotence  of  the  government  to  compel  obedi- 
ence to  it. 

There  were  also  certain  elements  in  the  political  situa- 
tion which  contributed  to  the  ultimate  defeat  of  prohibi- 
tion. The  Democratic  party  was  branded  as  the  friend  of 
the  saloon.  But  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  brewing  and 
distilling  interest  was  not  at  heart  so  dissatisfied  with  the 
condition  of  the  liqvior  traffic  as  it  pretended  to  be ;  and 
that  the  legal  relief  which  was  at  last  accorded  to  the  retail 
liquor  trade  in  the  mulct  law  was  the  act  of  Republicans, 
resisted  by  Democrats,  who  derived  greater  political  advan- 
tage from  keeping  the  question  in  politics  than  their  Re- 
publican adversaries  could  gain  by  getting  it  out  of  politics. 
The  Republican  party  saw  the  control  of  the  State  passing 
into  the  hands  of  its  adversaries.  It  was  irritated  and  angry 
with  the  extremists  who  revived  the  third  party  movement, 
at  the  most  critical  moment  of  the  conflict.  The  prohibi- 
tion team  had  run  away  with  the  Republican  wagon.  The 
time  arrived  when  a  halt  must  be  called,  and  the  Repub- 
lican party  saved,  whatever  became  of  the  radical  pro- 
hibitionists, who,  on  their  side,  were  offended  because  they 
had  measurably  lost  their  control.  The  emotional  fever, 
from  which  the  State  had  suffered  so  much,  subsided  ;  a 
reaction  set  in,  and  the  result  was  the  mulct  law,  which 
is  virtually  the  surrender  of  prohibition  —  at  least  of 
"  state-wide  "  prohibition,  as  the  phrase  is  in  Iowa.  This 
reaction  was  further  influenced  by  purely  economic  consid- 
erations ;   namely,  the  loss  of  public  revenue  from  the  sale 


BENEFITS    OF   PROHIBITION.  135 

of  spirits,  the  enormous  cost  of  criminal  procedure  on  ac- 
count of  tlie  prohibitory  law,  and  the  failure  to  obtain  an 
adequate  benefit  in  return  for  this  expenditure. 

I  find  it  quite  impossible  to  formulate  a  thoroughly  sat- 
isfactory answer  to  the  question  what  prohibition  in  Iowa 
accomplished,  and  especially  what  effect  it  had  to  increase 
or  diminish  the  actual  consumption  of  liquor.      It  certainly 
wiped  out  nearly  a  hundred  and  fifty  breweries,  closed  a 
large  distillery,  and  drove   out  of  business  nearly  or  quite 
two  thousand  saloons.      On  the  other  hand,  the  quality  of 
the  liquor  drunk  deteriorated  under  the  law ;   and  not  only 
the  resident  population  but   the  traveling  public  was  edu- 
cated, under  its  influence,  in  the  habit  of  purchasing  liquor 
at  the  drug-stores  in  preference  to  the  saloons,  and  to  drink 
in  private.      This  custom  still    prevails.      If  one  were   to 
base  a  judgment  merely  on  a  comparison  of  the  saloon  trade 
in  Des  Moines  to-day  with  the  same  trade  before  the  adop- 
tion of  the  law  of  1854,  it  would  be  clear  enough  that  the 
effect   of   the   law   has   been   salutary.      There  were   more 
saloons  in  Des  Moines  a  dozen  years  ago  than  there  are 
now,  and  they  were  more  prosperous,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the   population  of   the  city  has  doubled  within  that 
period.      But  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  far  more  liquor  is 
still  sold  as  a  beverage  in  the  drug-stores  than  in  the  sa- 
loons.     Many  of  them  sell  freely  by  the  bottle,  but  allow 
no  drinking  on  the  premises  ;   others  permit  trusted  friends 
to  keep  their  private  bottles  behind  the  prescription  case; 
and  some  do  a  flourishing  and  profitable  business  in  beer, 
particularly  on  Sundays  and  after  ten  o'clock  at  night,  which 
is  drunk  by  the  purchasers  in  the  back  room.     The  amount 
thus  consumed  cannot  be   estimated,   nor   the  amount  or- 
dered  by   mail   from   abroad   for   home   consumption,  and 
delivered  by  the  express  companies  at  the  purchaser's  door. 
The  fact,  however,  that  the   liquor  interest  was  willing  to 
expend  money  to  secure  the  repeal  of  the  law  indicates  that 


136  THE   HISTOKY   OF    PROHIBITION    IN   IOWA. 

it  entailed  upon  them  more  or  less  pecuniary  loss,  as  well 
as  great  annoyance,  which  means  that  their  sales  fell  off  in 
consequence  of  prohibition.  That  public  drinking  fell  off 
is  not  denied,  but  it  is  asserted  that  private  drinking,  to  an 
equal  or  greater  extent,  took  its  place.  But  the  growth  of 
the  class  known  as  "  saloon  loafers  "  was  materially  checked. 
These  results  were  secured,  however,  at  considerable  cost  in 
other  directions.  The  tension  was  too  great  to  be  kept  up. 
The  wave  of  popular  feeling  reached  its  maximum  height 
and  broke ;  then  followed  the  undertow,  the  inevitable  re- 
cession of  the  lofty  ideal  beneath  which  it  had  been  hoped 
that  the  evil  of  intemperance  might  be  forever  submerged. 

The  reaction,  however,  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  bring  about 
the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  law,  which  still  stands  upon 
the  statute  books  in  all  its  majesty,  without  abatement  of 
any  of  its  harsh  and  coercive  features.  It  did  not  even  go 
far  enough  to  admit  of  the  passage  of  a  local  option  law,  at 
least  in  form.  The  prohibitory  law  is  still  nominally  in 
force,  even  in  the  rebellious  counties  where  it  has  never 
been  enforced  in  fact. 

The  effect  of  the  law  popularly  called  the  mulct  law, 
though  the  word  mulct  does  not  occur  in  it,  is  very  nearly 
the  same  as  if  the  legislature  had  passed  a  local  option  law 
in  due  form.  The  prohibitory  law  is  now  practically  in 
force  wherever  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  favor  it,  and 
not  in  force  where  the  majority  of  legal  voters  is  opposed 
to  it.  But  the  Supreme  Court  has  held,  in  the  case  of 
Witter  V.  Forkner  and  Moore,  that  the  new  act  is  not  open 
to  the  constitutional  objections  which  applied  to  the  acts  of 
1857  and  1870,  held  by  the  court  to  be  null  and  void.  It 
has  been  declared  to  be  a  general  law,  applicable  alike  to 
all  localities  coming  within  its  terms,  Avhich  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  vote  of  the  people  to  give  it  validity.  Pro- 
hibition remains  the  general  rule,  and  license,  or  a  bar  to 
the  proceeding  against  violation  of  it,  the  exception.     The 


THE    EFFECT   OF   THE    MULCT   LAW.  137 

whole  matter  is  one  of  police  regulation,  delegated  to  the 
City  Council,  which  has  the  power  to  do,  but  is  not  required 
to  do,  those  things  which  remove  the  bar.  The  statute  is 
not  a  local  or  special  law,  nor  does  it  furnish  a  diversity  of 
laws  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  nor  is  it  a  violation 
of  the  constitutional  requirement  that  all  laws  of  a  general 
nature  shall  have  uniform  operation  throughout  the  State. 
It  does  not  confer  upon  the  people  of  a  particular  locality, 
nor  upon  city  councils  or  boards  of  township  trustees,  the 
pardoning  power,  since  it  does  not  remit  any  fine  or  forfeit- 
ure, for  none  is  imposed  in  the  locality  where  the  act  is  in 
operation ;  it  simply  bars  proceedings  which  might  result 
in  fine  or  forfeiture  if  allowed  to  continue. 

These  are  the  essential  points  made  by  the  court  in  its 
decision  rendered  April  2,  1895.  This  decision  appears  to 
be  final.  It  is  above  criticism,  however  difficult  it  may 
be  for  a  non-professional  mind  to  reconcile  the  positions 
taken  with  the  late  deliverances  relating  to  local  option. 
The  first  difference  between  the  mulct  law  and  local  option 
may  thus  be  stated  :  Under  a  local  option  law,  the  will  of 
the  people  of  a  county  or  of  a  municipality  is  ascertained  by 
resort  to  the  ballot-box ;  under  this  act,  it  is  ascertained 
by  petition.  The  question  whether  the  petitioners  are  in 
fact  voters,  and  whether  they  constitute  a  majority  of  all 
the  voters  who  voted  at  the  last  general  election,  cannot  be 
conclusively  determined  by  a  comparison  of  the  signatures 
with  the  names  entered  upon  the  poll  lists,  owing  to  bad 
writing,  and  mistakes  in  spelling  and  in  initials,  and  the 
law  is  defective  in  that  it  does  not  provide  for  the  final 
decision  of  disputes  as  to  this  point.  It  has  been  held  by 
the  judge  of  the  District  Court  in  Polk  County,  that  the 
arbiter  in  this  case  is  not  tlie  auditoi',  but  the  court. 
From  this  decision  an  appeal  has  been  taken  to  the  Su- 
preme Court. 

The  second  point  of  difference  between  the  mulct  law 


138  THE   HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN    IOWA. 

and  local  option  is  that,  by  a  popular  vote,  under  the  local 
option  system,  the  sale  of  liquor  is  legalized  in  certain 
localities.  Under  the  mulct  law  it  is  legalized  nowhere. 
Then,  too,  anybody  may  circulate  a  petition  at  any  time ; 
the  proceeding  does  not  require  to  be  initiated  by  any 
official  or  set  of  officials.  There  is  no  fixed  period  during 
which  the  bar  to  prosecution  continues  to  operate  ;  but  the 
filing  at  any  time  of  a  counter  petition,  signed  by  a  majority 
of  the  legal  voters  within  the  territory  affected,  and  duly 
filled  with  the  auditor,  removes  the  bar,  and  reinstates  the 
prohibitory  law.  The  payment  of  the  tax  does  not  in  itself 
constitute  a  bar  to  prosecution,  unless  all  the  other  condi- 
tions of  the  act  are  complied  with.  The  tax  is  imposed 
upon  all  persons  and  places  engaged  in  or  occupied  for  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  without  reference  to  the  petition. 
It  therefore  constitutes,  in  fact,  an  additional  penalty  imposed 
upon  violators  of  the  prohibitory  law  —  a  penalty  from  which 
the  county  and  the  municipality  receive  a  pecuniary  bene- 
fit ;  and  this  is  a  feature  of  the  bill  which  recommended  it 
to  the  prohibitionists  in  the  General  Assembly,  since  such 
a  tax  can  be  more  easily  collected  than  the  fines  imposed 
by  the  prohibitory  law.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether 
the  bill  could  have  been  passed,  had  it  not  been  coupled 
with  the  joint  resolution,  adopted  in  1894,  authorizing  the 
resubmission  of  the  constitutional  prohibitory  amendment 
to  a  vote  of  the  people  in  1898.  Some  prohibitionists,  in 
giving  their  reasons  for  consenting  to  the  bill,  which  are 
spread  upon  the  legislative  journals,  expressly  declare  that 
this  was  the  motive  which  controlled  their  action. 

Very  little  attention  is  paid  to  the  police  regulations 
contained  in  the  seventeenth  section,  in  towns  like  Daven- 
port and  Burlington,  where  the  saloons  are  open  on  Sunday 
and  at  all  hours  of  the  night  as  before,  and  where  there  are 
back  doors  and  other  concomitants  of  the  business  forbidden 
by  law.     It  is  not  strictly  observed  even  in  Des  Moines. 


THE    EFFECT   OF   THE   MULCT   LAW.  139 

There  have  been  prosecutions  under  it,  for  instance,  for 
sales  to  minors  ;  and  while  the  law  requires  that  the  sales 
shall  be  conducted  in  a  single  room,  upon  the  ground  floor, 
in  plain  view  of  every  one  who  passes  by  in  the  public 
street,  there  are  saloons  which  furnish  liquor  to  customers 
in  a  room  upstairs,  by  means  of  a  dumb  waiter.  There  are 
also  saloons  which  have  a  back  room,  in  which  there  are 
chairs  and  tables.  Nevertheless,  my  observation  in  this 
city  warrants  me  in  saying  that  I  doubt  whether  there  is 
any  city  of  equal  size,  in  the  United  States,  in  which  any 
law  imposing  restrictions  upon  the  liquor  traffic  is  so  well 
obeyed  as  here.  It  would  be  over-sanguine  to  expect  this 
state  of  affairs  to  continue  permanently. 

Registered  pharmacists  holding  permits  are  exempt  from 
the  mulct.  They  have  therefore  a  decided  business  advan- 
tage over  their  competitors.  They  also  wield,  through  the 
Pharmacy  Commission,  a  political  influence  which  the  keep- 
ers of  dramshops  do  not  at  present  exercise,  since  they  are 
still  under  the  ban  of  the  law. 

By  the  mulct  act  the  saloons  are  successfully  required 
to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  government.  The  ques- 
tion of  license  or  no  license  is  measurably  taken  out  of 
politics,  since  it  does  not  come  up  at  any  general  or  special 
election,  and  cannot  be  complicated  with  purely  political 
issues  or  the  claims  of  candidates  for  office.  The  holding 
in  reserve,  over  saloon-keepers'  heads,  of  the  pains  and 
penalties  contained  in  the  prohibitory  act,  is  a  powerful 
motive  to  impel  them  to  compliance  with  proper  police  re- 
strictions upon  their  business.  But  there  seems  to  be,  from 
a  theoretical  point  of  view,  a  certain  inconsistency  in  pre- 
tending that  a  law  is  uniform  in  its  operation  and  at  the 
same  time  providing  for  the  suspension  of  penalty  upon 
payment  of  a  pecuniary  consideration.  There  is,  moreover, 
an  element  of  governmental  weakness  in  the  practical  sur- 
render of   the   legislature,  which   represents   the  people  of 


140  THE    HISTORY   OF   PROHIBITION   IN    IOWA. 

the  whole  State,  to  the  counties  which  have  been  so  long 
in  rebellion.  The  government  virtually,  by  this  act,  says 
to  the  governed :  If  you  do  not  like  our  laws,  and  will  only 
persist  long  enough  in  resistance  to  them,  we  will  not  indeed 
repeal  them  to  please  you,  but  we  will  undertake  to  defend 
you  against  prosecution  for  their  violation.  The  same 
principle  applied  to  other  social  evils,  such  as  gambling,  for 
instance,  would  be  equally  justifiable,  and  the  law  appears 
to  have  established  a  dangerous  precedent. 

It  is  only  a  pessimist  who  can  impartially  review  this 
history  with  feelings  of  regret.  The  Eepublicans  of  Iowa 
have  done  much  to  educate  public  opinion  in  opposition  to 
self-indulgence  and  excess.  The  Democrats  have  insisted 
that  the  principle  of  personal  liberty  must  not  be  sacrificed 
to  a  supposed  moral  exigency.  The  long  fight  in  Iowa  has 
cleared  away  in  part  the  obscurity  of  thought  which  delays 
the  reconciliation  of  these  two  seemingly  antagonistic  ideas ; 
and  the  experience  through  which  the  State  has  passed  can- 
not fail  to  teach  many  lessons  which  will  aid  other  States 
in  the  determination  of  the  best  course  to  pursue,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  liberty  of  the  citizen  and  at  the  same  time 
reduce  the  evils  of  intemperance  to  a  minimum. 

1895. 


THE  SOUTH   CAROLINA  DISPENSARY  SYSTEM. 

When,  in  1876,  the  Democratic  party  of  South  Carolina 
regained  control  of  the  State,  the  old  planter  class  had  in 
good  measure  disappeared,  and  with  it  the  main  prop  of 
the  ante-bellum  regime.  Vast  estates  had  been  divided, 
and  many  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  negro  tenants.  The 
era  of  the  small  freeholder  had  begun.  The  old  oligarchy, 
however,  still  held  the  wealth  and  had  the  social  power  and 
were  the  educated  class.  From  their  ranks  came  the  new 
leaders  and  office-holders.  The  policy  of  government  con- 
tinued to  be  shaped  by  a  minority  which  lived  in  the  cities 
and  larger  towns,  and  more  especially  by  those  who,  through 
the  prevailing  class  distinctions,  considered  themselves  the 
traditional  heirs  to  political  preferment.  Although  the 
State  is  predominantly  aia  agricultural  community,  the  will 
and  wishes  of  the  farmers  were  not  consulted.  Except  in 
point  of  numbers,  they  lacked  the  influences  that  command 
even  an  unwilling  hearing  ;  and  they  were  without  organi- 
zation. 

But  before  long  the  mutterings  of  the  agrarian  move- 
ments, then  in  their  infancy,  were  heard.  The  growing 
restlessness  of  the  agricultural  classes  was  encouraged  by 
leaders  till  it  became  an  organized  discontent.  Their  most 
effective  argument  was  an  appeal  to  class  prejudice.  The 
State,  they  said,  was  not  governed  by  the  people,  but  by  a 
class  of  aristocrats,  who  regarded  themselves  as  privileged. 
These  were  denounced  as  a  "  ring,"  guilty  of  all  manner  of 
abuse  and  mismanagement,  and  their  sins  of  the  past  were 


142        THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

recalled.  From  their  beginnings  the  "  Patrons  of  Hus- 
bandry "  and  the  "  Farmers'  Alliance  "  readily  lent  them- 
selves to  the  new  aspirations  of  the  rural  population. 
Between  the  ''up"  country  and  the  "low"  country  no 
love  had  ever  been  lost.  The  low  country,  with  Charleston 
as  its  centre,  had  always  been  accused  of  arrogating  to 
itself  the  right  to  dictate  the  policy  of  the  State.  Now 
the  rural  districts  were  everywhere  organized  against  the 
towns  and  cities.  The  urban  residents  were  accused  of 
reaping  undue  advantages  at  the  expense  of  the  farmers, 
and  of  usurping  political  power. 

The  culmination  of  years  of  agitation  and  discontent 
came  in  1890,  when  the  rustic  party  overwhelmingly  de- 
feated the  ruling  minority.  The  leaders  of  the  new  move- 
ment —  the  "  Eeform  party  "  it  was  called,  in  distinction 
from  the  "  Conservatives,"  who  stood  for  the  old  Demo- 
cracy —  had  above  all  things  succeeded  in  dividing  the 
Commonwealth  into  two  bitterly  hostile  camps.  It  was  a 
division  on  social  lines.  On  one  side  stood  the  large  major- 
ity of  the  voters,  principally  farmers,  including  the  illiterate 
whites ;  on  the  other,  the  representatives  of  the  once  ruling 
class  and  their  sympathizers,  whose  strength  was  in  the  cities 
and  towns.  Ordinary  party  questions  had  not  played  a  con- 
spicuous part.  The  Reformers  assumed  to  stand  for  the 
national  Democratic  party  ;  so  did  their  opponents.  Neither 
side  appealed  to  the  negro  vote,  but  both  feared  it.  In 
short,  it  was  a  struggle  for  supremacy  between  the  "  wool- 
hat  and  one-gallus  boys  "  and  the  "  kid-glove  gentry,"  to 
adopt  the  catchwords  of  the  campaigns. 

In  1890  the  total  population  of  the  State  (United  States 
Census)  was  1,151,149  (402,008  whites  and  689,141  colored). 
The  foreign-born  inhabitants  (almost  exclusively  Irish  and 
German,  with  a  few  Italians  in  the  cities)  numbered  only 
6,270,  or  but  .54  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  Of  the  whites 
of  ten  years  of  age  and  over,  17.9  per  cent,  were  illiterate. 


PEEVIOUS   LIQUOR   LEGISLATION.  143 

The  Avhite  people  are  nearly  all  of  native  stock,  but  with 
a  percentage  of  illiteracy  exceeded  in  the  South  only  by 
North  Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Louisiana.  Of  the  colored 
population,  64.1  per  cent,  were  illiterate. 

The  urban  population  is  comparatively  small.  Only  five 
cities  have  each  more  than  5,000  inhabitants,  and  all  these 
five  have  only  84,459.  Only  131,287,  or  11.46  per  cent.,  of 
the  entire  population  live  in  towns  of  2,000  population  and 
more.  Nine  counties,  including  some  of  the  largest,  are 
without  towns  of  more  than  1,000  inhabitants.  In  the 
lower  and  middle  sections  the  negroes  outnumber  the  whites, 
in  some  places  two  to  one.  Elsewhere  the  two  races  are 
about  equally  divided.  The  agricultural  pursuits  are  su- 
preme in  importance.  The  manufacturing  interests,  how- 
ever, are  developing,  chiefly  cotton  spinning,  in  which  white 
labor  is  almost  exclusively  employed. 

LIQUOR    LEGISLATION    PREVIOUS    TO    1892. 

The  early  liquor  laws,  which  were  fragmentary  and  not 
uniform,  sought  to  meet  special  needs  by  special  acts.  A 
general  law  of  1880  forbade  the  issue  of  licenses  outside  of 
the  incorporated  cities,  towns,  and  villages.  But  municipal- 
ities were  left  free  to  fix  the  fees,  after  paying  $100  to  the 
county  for  every  license.  The  independence  enjoyed  by  the 
municipalities  in  regulating  the  traffic  resulted,  naturally, 
in  keeping  the  liquor  question  in  local  politics.  In  the 
fixing  of  the  fee,  however,  the  tax-payer  frequently  had  his 
say,  because  it  touched  his  pocket.  In  numerous  places 
licenses  came  to  cost  $500  and  even  $1,000.  But  the  legal 
restraints  were  not  severe.  There  remained  the  alternative 
of  prohibiting  liquor-selling  altogether.  In  1882  a  local 
option  law  was  passed,  which,  in  turn,  was  modified  by  spe- 
cial acts.  But  it  did  not  affect  the  counties  where  prohibi- 
tion already  existed  by  virtue  of  a  statute. 

The  drink  problem,  which  had  hitherto  played   a  part 


144       THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

chiefly  in  local  politics,  became  a  state  problem  at  the  very 
time  of  the  triumph  of  the  Reform  party.  By  1891  pro- 
hibition was  in  force  in  six  counties,  and  in  more  than 
sixty  towns  and  villages.  But  this  apparent  growth  of  the 
temperance  sentiment  did  not  satisfy  the  prohibitionists. 
The  local  enactments  had  not  worked  successfully  every- 
where. A  remedy  was  sought  in  "  state-wide "  prohibi- 
tion. 

It  became  a  political  necessity  for  the  Reformers  to  take 
some  definite  action.  Thus  far  they  had  not  pledged  them- 
selves to  one  policy  or  the  other,  but  it  was  well  known 
that  both  the  Reformers  and  the  temperance  men  drew  their 
strength  from  the  same  sources.  In  1891  the  prohibition- 
ists exhi])ited  signs  of  unexpected  strength.  An  immense 
petition  in  favor  of  prohibition  was  about  to  be  presented 
to  the  legislature.  The  governor  in  his  message  spoke  of 
the  ''  gross  ineqiiality  "  of  the  license  system  because  only 
a  small  part  of  the  license  fees  went  to  the  general  fund, 
"  The  people  in  the  country,"  he  said,  "  pay  tribute  to  those 
who  sell  liquor,  —  by  means  of  which  the  towns  are  beauti- 
fied and  adorned,  —  but  they  pay  tax  for  the  suppression  of 
the  crime  produced  by  the  maintenance  of  these  barrooms. 
It  is  unjust  and  unequal,  and  ought  to  be  stopped." 

He  proposed  to  deprive  the  municipalities  of  the  license 
moneys,  dividing  them  equally  between  the  State  and  the 
county,  imposing  a  high  fee  and  leaving  the  local  option 
law  as  it  was. 

But  this  appeal  to  the  pocket  of  the  rate-payer  and  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  rural  classes  against  the  towns  did  not 
meet  with  favor.  The  lower  branch  of  the  legislature,  now 
completely  in  the  control  of  the  Reform  party,  was  of  strong 
temperance  proclivities,  and  passed  an  "  iron-clad  "  prohil^i- 
tory  bill  by  a  vote  of  fifty-three  to  thirty -seven.  The  Sen- 
ate, more  regardful  of  party  needs,  killed  this  bill.  But 
some  concession  to  the  strong    prohibition  sentiment  was 


PKEVIOUS   LIQUOK  LEGISLATION.  145 

imperative.  It  was  therefore  agreed  in  tlie  convention 
preceding  the  state  campaign  of  1892  to  take  a  popular  vote 
on  prohibition  by  special  ballot  at  the  election  of  that  year. 
The  majority  for  prohibition  was  10,000  votes  out  of  a 
total  vote  of  70,000.  The  prohibitory  committee  claimed 
three  fourths  of  the  legislature  ;  they  claimed,  too,  that  the 
candidates  for  the  legislature  had  voluntarily  "agreed  to 
abide  by  the  result  of  the  ballot  in  the  prohibition  box  and 
support  or  oppose  the  measure  in  the  legislature  as  the  ma- 
jority in  the  box  should  determine."  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  pointed  out  that  nearly  20,000  electors  had  failed  to 
vote  on  the  question,  one  way  or  the  other,  and  that  hence 
the  popular  vote  taken  did  not  fairly  represent  public  sen- 
timent. A  political  panic  had  set  in,  and  a  month  before  the 
legislature  convened  there  was  talk  of  again  referring  the 
question  of  prohibition  to  the  people.  The  liquor  problem 
had  to  be  met.  This  was  acknowledged  at  the  outset  in 
the  message  of  Governor  B.  F.  Tillman  to  the  legislature 
in  November,  1892.  This  message  revealed  the  critical  po- 
sition in  which  the  dominant  party  found  itself,  and  showed 
the  animus  of  its  leaders.  In  the  message  the  governor 
said :  — 

"  I  would  call  your  attention  to  the  law  in  force  in  Athens, 
Georgia,  by  which  a  dispensary  for  the  sale  of  liquor  is  ijro- 
vided,  and  which,  after  a  trial,  is  pronounced  a  success  by  the 
prohibitionists.  .  .  .  When  attention  is  directed  to  the  fact 
that  most  of  our  municipalities  are  relieved  altogether  of  taxa- 
tion for  municipal  purposes  by  the  money  derived  from  the 
sale  of  liquor,  it  will  be  seen  why  so  many  towns,  wliich  have 
tried  the  prohibitory  system,  wlien  they  found  liquor  sold  any 
way,  and  their  municipal  taxes  drawn  from  property,  .  .  . 
have  returned  to  license." 

The  message  then  reiterated  the  plan  proposed  in  1891 
of  dividing  the  license  fees  between  the  county  and  State, 
but  permitting  the  municipality  to  issue  the  license,  and 
concluded :    "  I    have  seen  no  reason  to  change  my  opinion 


146       THE   SOUTH   CAEOLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

as  to  this  being  the  simplest  and  most  practicable  way  of 
accomplishing  the  end  desired.  .  .  .  On  the  other  hand,  abso- 
lute refusal  to  license  liquor  will  increase  the  taxes  of  the 
county  one  half  mill.  ,  ,  .  Another  struggle  which  we  can- 
not be  blind  to  will  be  the  probability  of  a  desperate  politi- 
cal struggle  between  the  prohibitionists  and  anti-prohibi- 
tionists two  years  hence,  with  an  appeal  to  the  negro  as  the 
balance  of  power ;  for  in  every  town  where  the  question  has 
been  fought  out  at  the  polls  this  has  been  the  effect,  and, 
when  applied  to  the  State,  we  must  look  for  a  like  result." 

This  renewed  appeal  to  the  pocket-book  and  the  jealous 
feeling  of  the  rural  districts  toward  the  cities  did  not  pro- 
duce the  desired  effect ;  nor  did  the  fear  expressed  of  polit- 
ical complications  sure  to  endanger  the  Reform  party, 
should  prohibition  win,  strike  deeply.  After  much  debate, 
and  having  considered  several  prohibitory  bills,  the  House 
passed  one  of  the  most  stringent  nature.  The  leaders  of 
the  Reform  party,  who  were  best  represented,  naturally  in 
the  Senate,  took  alarm  at  the  situation.  They  were,  above 
all  things,  pledged  to  bring  about  a  reduction  of  taxation, 
which  last  of  all  could  be  effected  when  under  the  necessity 
of  enforcing  a  prohibitory  law.  Besides,  within  the  party 
itself  there  was  not  a  unanimous  sentiment  in  favor  of  the 
proposed  law.  Its  enactment  foreboded  for  a  certainty 
serious  complications,  if  not  political  shipwreck.  Inaction 
would  be  equally  fraught  with  danger. 

The  problem  had  to  find  some  solution.  The  dispen- 
sary system  in  vogue  at  Athens,  Georgia,  gave  the  cIcav  to 
a  possible  escape  from  the  dilemma.  This  was  a  system 
of  municipal  control  of  the  liquor  traffic  having  a  twofold 
aim  :  to  reduce  the  evils  of  the  liquor  traffic  by  taking  it 
out  of  private  hands,  and  to  retain  the  whole  profit  from  it 
for  municipal  purposes.  Accordingly,  the  House  prohibi- 
tory bill  was  killed  in  tlie  Senate  by  substituting  for  it,  by 
a  vote  of  18  to  10,  what  became  known  as  the  "  dispensary 


THE   LAW    OF    1892.  147 

act."  The  new  measure  was  rushed  through  toward  the 
very  end  of  the  session.  Tlie  lower  House  liad  barely  time 
to  read  it.  It  was  whipped  through  in  the  course  of  two 
and  a  half  hours  at  the  last  meeting. 

THE    DISPENSARY    LAW    OF    1892. 

This  law  bore  the  sub  title,  "  An  act  to  prohibit  the  man- 
ufacture and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage 
within  the  State,  except  as  herein  provided ; "  and  it  went 
into  effect  only  July  1,  1893.  Its  principal  features  are 
summarized  as  follows  :  — 

The  governor,  with  the  approval  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint 
a  commissioner  for  two  years,  who,  under  the  regulations  of 
the  State  Board  of  Control  (the  governor,  the  comptroller- 
general,  and  the  attorney-general),  shall  buy  all  liquors  for 
lawful  sale  in  the  State,  giving  preference  to  distillers  and 
brewers  in  the  State ;  and  he  shall  supply  them  to  local  dis- 
pensers for  not  more  than  50  per  cent,  above  their  net  cost. 
The  liquors  shall  be  shown  by  analysis  to  be  pure  and  unadul- 
terated. The  commissioner  must  give  a  bond  in  the  sum  of 
f  10,000  and  pay  monthly  to  the  state  treasurer  all  money  re- 
ceived by  him.  He  shall  make  a  quarterly  sworn  statement  of 
all  the  business  done  by  him. 

Every  package  of  liquor  must  be  sealed  and  bear  a  certificate 
that  it  was  bought  by  the  commissioner  ;  a  package  shall  not 
contain  less  than  a  lialf-iiint  nor  more  than  five  gallons.  The 
local  dispenser  shall  not  break  the  seal  of  any  package ;  he 
must  sell  by  the  package  only,  and  the  purchaser  shall  not 
open  a  package  on  the  premises. 

County  Boards  of  Control  (consisting  of  three  members),  a\> 
pointed  for  two  years  by  the  State  Board,  shall  make  rules  for 
the  sale  each  in  its  own  county,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
State  Board. 

Manufacturers  in  the  State  may  sell  to  no  one  in  the  State 
but  the  state  commissioner,  but  they  may  sell  to  purchasers 
outside  the  State ;  but  packages  without  certificates,  shipped 
outside  the  State,  shall  be  liable  to  confiscation. 

Any  one  may  make  wine  from  grapes  or  other  fruits  for 
personal  use. 

Provision  was  made  for  one  county  dispenser  at  the  county 


148        THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY    SYSTEM. 

seat  of  every  county  (except  that  in  Charleston  there  might  be 
ten  dispensers  and  in  Cohunbia  three),  and  the  County  Board 
were  at  liberty  to  establish  dispensaries  at  other  towns  than 
the  county  seat.  The  petition  of  the  applicant  for  the  place 
of  dispenser  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  freeholders 
of  the  municii:)ality  in  which  the  dispensary  is  to  be,  and  he 
shall  give  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  $3,000.  He  may  not  be  a  drug- 
gist or  the  keeper  of  a  hotel  or  restaurant  or  place  of  amuse- 
ment. 

"Permits  granted  under  this  act  shall  be  deemed  trusts," 
says  the  law,  "  reposed  in  the  recipients  thereof,  not  as  a  matter 
of  right  but  of  confidence,"  and  they  may  be  revoked.  Their 
compensation  is  fixed  by  the  State  Board. 

The  profits  shall  be  paid  monthly,  one  half  to  the  county  and 
the  other  half  to  the  municipality. 

A  purchaser,  before  he  may  be  served,  must  present  a  re- 
quest, printed  or  written  in  ink,  giving  his  name,  age,  and 
residence,  the  kind  and  quantity  of  liquor  wanted,  and  for 
whose  use ;  and  the  request  must  bear  the  signature  of  the  ap- 
plicant and  be  countersigned  by  the  dispenser ;  the  dispenser 
shall  requii-e  the  identification  of  the  applicant  if  unknown ; 
and  no  minor  nor  habitually  intemperate  person  may  be  served. 
All  requests  shall  be  reported  monthly  to  the  county  auditor. 

The  disjienser's  books  shall  at  all  times  be  open  to  the  in- 
spection of  officials  and  of  citizens. 

The  payment  of  a  United  States  special  liquor  tax  shall  be 
prima  facie  evidence  of  liquor-selling;  druggists  may  buy  for 
the  purpose  of  compounding  medicines  that  cannot  be  used  as 
beverages. 

The  State  shall  appropriate  $50,000  to  buy  the  first  supply. 

Attaching  a  false  signature  by  any  buyer  shall  be  a  misde- 
meanor, fine  f  100  to  $500,  or  imprisonment  front  one  month  to 
six  months  ;  for  maintaining  a  place  where  liquor  is  illegally 
sold  or  given  away,  for  the  first  offense,  fine  $100  to  $,1000, 
or  imprisonment  from  three  to  twelve  months.  Transjiorting 
liquor  into  the  State,  or  transporting  from  place  to  place  liquor 
for  sale,  $500  for  each  offense  and  imprisonment  one  year. 

The  governor  shall  have  power  to  appoint  constables  (salary 
$2  a  day  and  expenses)  to  enforce  the  law. 

This  is  the  substance  of  tlie  first  dispensary  act.  In  re- 
ferring to  it  in  his  message  a  year  later,  the  governor  said 
that    the    Senate,    using    the    prohibitory  bill    which  had 


THE   LAW   OF    1892.  149 

passed  the  House  "  in  its  entirety  almost  as  a  basis,  with  a 
few  alterations  and  amendments  made  necessary  on  ac- 
count of  the  change  of  purpose,"  returned  the  dispensary 
act  as  a  substitute  for  the  prohibition  bill,  and  the  House, 
concurred  in  tlie  same  without  amendment,  as  the  time 
was  too  short  even  to  discuss  it.  But  when  he  continued, 
*'  The  act  thus  hurriedly  prepared  became  a  law,  as  a  com- 
promise between  the  prohibitionists  and  the  temperance  peo- 
ple who  were  skeptical  as  to  the  practicability  of  a  prohibit 
tion  law,"  he  did  not  make  a  statement  of  the  whole  case. 
"  The  dispensary  bill,"  said  the  Reform  party,  "  was  intro- 
duced to  gain  time  for  discussion  of  the  whole  subject," 
after  a  prohibition  bill  had  gone  through  one  branch  of  the 
legislature  with  a  rush.  The  "  Reformers  "  were  afraid  of 
an  out-and-out  prohibition  law,  but  they  wished  to  retain 
the  support  of  the  prohibitionists.  *'  The  passage  of  the 
dispensary  bill  will  not  weaken  the  Reform  movement  to 
any  great  extent,"  said  the  chief  newspaper  organ  of  the 
governor.^  "  The  prohibitionists  will  come  over.  The  great 
majority  of  our  white  voters  reside  in  the  country,  and  have 
no  interest  in  sustaining  the  saloons.  Liquor  licenses  do 
not  lessen  their  taxes,  and  if  they  can  procure  all  the  whiskey 
required,  and  have  the  profits  thereon  returned  to  them, 
they  will  be  content  with  the  existing  order  of  things." 

The  financial  feature  of  the  new  device  was  thus  relied 
upon  to  win  favor  among  the  party  pledged  to  its  enforce- 
•ment  and  support.  By  the  highest  authority  it  was  de- 
clared in  advance  that,  with  a  much  reduced  consumption, 
the  dispensaries  would  within  a  year  yield  net  profits  of 
not  less  than  $500,000.  And  this  led  to  the  further  pre- 
diction that  ''  before  189-4  dispensaries  will  be  established 
in  counties  where  there  now  is  prohibition," 

In  1892  South  Carolina  had  about  613  barrooms,  from 
1  Columbia  Register,  December  25,  1892. 


150       THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

which  the  counties  derived  a  revenue  of  $81,000  and  the 
municipalities  $134,372.  In  1893  many  of  the  saloon- 
keepers had  not  opened  their  shops,  although  the  law  ex- 
pressly provided  that  they  might  continue  their  business 
until  June  30  on  the  payment  of  one  half  of  the  usual 
fee. 

The  closing  of  the  saloons  was  generally  accomplished 
without  much  disturbance.  The  step  to  perfect  compli- 
ance with  the  new  law  was,  however,  still  a  very  long  one. 
Many  former  dealers  were  determined  to  continue  the  traffic  ; 
for  even  after  the  law  became  operative  no  less  than  205 
United  States  special  liquor  taxes  were  paid.  "  Blind 
tigers,"  as  the  unlicensed  liquor-shops  are  called,  made 
their  appearance.  Whiskey  flowed  into  the  State  through 
many  unsuspected  channels.  The  railroads  and  other  com- 
mon carriers  did  not  all  discovmtenance  the  smuggling  of 
the  contraband  goods  ;  some  seemed  rather  to  lend  active 
aid  in  defeating  the  law.  The  state  constabulary  were  at 
the  outset  wholly  unable  to  stem  the  liquor  tide.  The 
governor,  upon  whom  from  the  beginning  had  rested,  not 
only  the  perfecting  and  conducting  of  the  state  liquor  busi- 
ness, but  the  organization  and  direction  of  the  constabulary, 
soon  said  :  "  The  only  and  best  means  I  have  to  keep  down 
the  '  blind  tigers  '  is  to  establish  dispensaries.  Again,  the 
revenue  from  these  is  absolutely  necessary  to  maintain  the 
force  of  constables."  The  city  aiithorities  did  not  feel  called 
upon  to  assist  him,  for  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  was 
naturally  assumed  to  be  a  function  of  the  State.  While  no 
municipalities  displayed  activity  in  suppressing  the  illegal 
selling,  several  of  them  strove  to  prevent  the  opening  of 
dispensaries.  Suits  were  brought  for  this  purpose  and  in 
order  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law.  Charges  of 
fraud  were  made  against  those  who  had  labored  to  secure 
the  required  number  of  signatures  to  petitions  for  state 
liquor-shops.     The  governor   went  on  extending   his  new 


THE   LAW   OF   1892.  151 

enterprise.  But  the  dispensary  act  remained  unpopular. 
It  did  not  satisfy  the  advanced  prohibitionists,  who  had 
been  baffled  by  its  enactment  when  almost  within  the  sight 
of  victory.  While  many  temperance  advocates  rejoiced  at 
the  closing  of  the  saloons,  others,  among  them  prominent 
clergymen,  denounced  the  state  traffic  as  "  unholy."  In 
two  instances  dispensers  found  themselves  forced  to  resign 
church  membership.  Moreover,  the  socialistic  basis  of  the 
law  displeased  many  ;  and  it  was  decried  as  unconstitu- 
tional and  a  gross  infringement  upon  personal  liberty.  The 
press  (with  but  few  exceptions)  ridiculed  the  law,  and 
rather  encouraged  its  violation. 

Beneath  all  the  bitter  opposition  lay  a  rooted  hostility, 
partly  political,  partly  personal,  to  the  originators  and  chief 
supporters  of  the  scheme,  creating  a  conviction  that  nothing 
good  could  emanate  from  the  party  in  power.  By  its  enact- 
ment the  administration  had  not  only  demonstrated  the  im- 
potence of  the  minority,  but  had  gained  a  distinct  political 
advantage.      This  intensified  the  feeling. 

Serious  legal  complications  soon  arose  from  attempts  to 
enforce  the  law.  One  constable  found  himself  in  trouble 
for  interference,  as  it  was  alleged,  with  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Act  by  seizing  certain  contrabrand  liquors.  Subse- 
quently, a  circuit  judge  declared  the  law  unconstitutional. 
By  October,  1893,  three  judges  had  rendered  decisions  to 
the  effect  that  the  act  did  not  provide  penalties  for  the  mere 
act  of  selling  liquor.  Before  November,  dispensary  cases 
had  b§en  argued  in  the  United  States  court,  in  the  State 
Supreme  Court,  and  before  nearly  every  circuit  judge  on 
the  bench.  Under  the  circumstances,  the  penal  clauses  of 
the  law  naturally  remained  inoperative.  The  severest  pun- 
ishment that  could  be  inflicted  even  on  flagrant  offenders 
was  only  the  confiscation  of  their  liquors.  Before  the  law 
was  four  months  old,  more  than  fifty  cases  for  its  violation 
had  reached  the  courts.     But  it  was  impossible  to  push  them 


152        THE    SOUTH    CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

on  to  a  final  conviction,  and  very  few  ever  reached  a  petty 
jury.  Not  only  was  there  a  manifest  reluctance  thus  to 
assist  in  making  effective  a  law  odious  to  nearly  all  men 
from  whose  number  juries  were  drawn,  but  some  of  the 
offenses  were  of  a  nature  "  which  most  men  consider  not 
as  meriting  such  severe  punishments  as  now  provided."  ^ 
In  this  category  belonged,  for  instance,  the  penalty  for 
transporting  liquor  for  others,  or  bringing  it  into  the  State 
for  personal  use.  Arrests  for  such  violations  were  therefore 
often  made  more  as  form  than  to  bring  the  offender  to  book. 

To  add  to  the  complications,  some  of  the  local  dispensers 
showed  themselves  utterly  unfit,  which  of  course  engendered 
new  contempt  for  the  whole  scheme.  Meanwhile  the  busi- 
ness had  grown.  In  July  there  were  29  county  dispensa- 
ries ;  in  August,  39  ;  in  September,  47 ;  in  October,  51. 
One  had  been  discontinued.  The  local  dispensers  and  their 
clerks  numbered  74,  and  were  receiving  salaries  ranging  from 
$300  to  $1,000  per  annum.  At  the  central  distributing 
depot  in  Columbia,  54  employees  were  working  10  hours 
a  da3^  Yet  it  was  found  '*  almost  impossible  to  keep  the 
local  dispensers  in  stock,"  and  that,  too,  when  the  governor 
said  that  "  not  more  than  one  half  of  the  liquor  drunk  in 
the  State  at  this  time  has  passed  through  the  dispensary." 
The  negroes  harbored  no  ill-will  against  the  promoters  of 
the  law,  and  furnished  the  principal  custom  of  the  dispen- 
saries. 

The  gross  sales  to  consumers  in  four  months  had  amounted 
to  $166,043.56  ;  total  expenses  of  the  State  Dispensary, 
$72,566.36,  and  of  county  dispensers,  $19,890.  This  left 
an  apparent  profit  of  $32,198.16,  counting  the  probable 
proceeds  from  the  stock  still  in  the  hands  of  the  local 
dispensers.      The  actual  profit  paid  in  was  $4,546.93. 

To  what  extent  the  system,  from  a  temperance  point  of 
view,  would  surpass  a  license  system,  it  was  too  early  to 
1  Governor  Tillman's  message,  1894. 


THE   LAW   OF    1893.  153 

determine  ;  besides,  the  illegal  traffic  still  flourished.  As  a 
financial  venture,  the  dispensaries  had  so  far  not  proved  a 
success.  The  expectation  of  large  returns  to  the  several 
counties  and  the  State,  with  a  proportionate  reduction  of 
taxes,  had  appealed  strongly  to  the  rural  legislators.  But 
the  cities  and  towns  now  found  themselves  deprived  of  a 
large  part  of  their  revenue,  which  caused  further  resent- 
ment ;  and  there  were  many  among  the  temperance  advo- 
cates who  "  cried  aloud  against  the  iniquity  of  a  government 
sharing  in  the  '  blood  money.'  " 

With  many  recommendations  of  specific  amendments  by 
which  the  law  could  be  fortified  and  its  better  enforcement 
secured,  the  act  of  1892  was  referred  to  the  next  legislature, 
and  it  emerged  in  due  time  in  a  completely  remodeled  form. 
The  underlying  principle  remained  the  same.  The  changes 
were  in  general  designed  to  strengthen  and  secure  the  mo- 
nopoly of  the  State  J 

(1)  By  facilitating  the  establishment  of  new  dispensaries, 
which  would  do  away  with  rural  prohibition,  and  thus  ex- 
tend the  monopoly ;  (2)  by  increasing  in  several  ways  the 
power  of  the  constables,  and  thus  render  illicit  importation 
or  sale  unprofitable,  if  not  impossible  ;  (3)  by  reducing  the 
penalties  in  some  cases  and  bringing  them  down  to  trial  jus- 
tice jurisdiction,  thus  avoiding  petty  juries  as  well  as  grand 
juries,  besides  making  the  punishment  more  commensurate 
with  the  popular  estimate  of  the  ofiense  ;  (4)  by  providing 
new  penalties  to  meet  every  contingency ;  (5)  by  threaten- 
ing to  withhold  from  the  municipalities  their  share  of  dis- 
pensary profits  for  failure  to  suppress  illegal  sales ;  and  (6) 
by  discrimination  in  favor  of  home  products,  thus  lessening 
the  opposition  from  one  quarter  at  least. 

THE    AMENDED    DISPENSARY    LAW    (1893). 

The  new  act  went  into  efi"ect  upon  its  approval,  Decem- 
ber 23,  1893,  and  served  but  to  feed  the  feeling  of  ill-will 


154       THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY    SYSTEM. 

against  the  state  liquor  traffic.  Especially  odious  were  the 
unusual  powers  conferred  upon  the  constables,  who  had  not 
proved  themselves  a  high  type  of  officials  in  making  searches, 
seizures,  and  arrests,  and  the  threat  to  punish  the  munici- 
palities by  depriving  them  of  revenue  for  not  lending  sym- 
pathy to  the  state  monopoly.  The  tension  caused  by  the 
work  of  the  constabulary  grew.  On  December  17,  1893, 
the  first  bloody  conflict  between  constables  and  citizens  aris- 
ing from  it  occurred,  when  a  negro  was  shot  by  a  constable. 
Soon  all  municipalities  received  notice  from  the  governor 
that  they  must  exterminate  the  "  blind  tigers "  or  forfeit 
the  revenue.  One  city  was  thus  dealt  with  a  few  days  later. 
A  circular  was  issued  to  trial  justices  instructing  them,  under 
penalty  of  removal,  to  secure  obedience  to  the  law.  This 
significant  document  was  in  part  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  statutes,  as  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  require 
that  criminal  cases  coming  within  the  jurisdiction  of  trial 
justices  shall  be  tried  by  jury,  on  demand  of  the  defendant. 
.  .  .  Jurors  are  to  be  summoned  by  the  constable  after  six 
names  have  been  drawn  from  a  hat  in  which  eighteen  names 
have  been  placed  by  the  constable.  It  will  be  the  duty  of  trial 
justices  to  see  that  no  names  are  put  in  the  hat  except  those  of 
men  who  will  find  a  verdict  according  to  the  evidence,  and  not 
perjure  themselves  through  prejudice  against  the  law." 

The  friction  produced  by  attempts  at  executing  the  laws 
was  rapidly  nearing  the  danger  point.  On  February  3, 
1894,  occurred  the  second  deadly  conflict  (in  Wellington), 
in  which  one  man  was  killed  by  a  constable  and  another 
was  wounded. 

The  state  officers  were  now  armed  with  rifles,  and  there 
was  talk  of  the  need  of  the  militia  to  reinforce  them.  Be- 
fore the  end  of  March,  three  cities  —  Columbia,  Florence, 
and  Darlington  —  were  notified  that  they  must  relinquish 
their  share  of  the  dispensary  money.  In  Darlington  seri- 
ous trouble  was  already  brewing.     Numerous  raids  in  search 


THE    LAW   OF    1893.  155 

of  liquor  had  been  made  ;  many  constables  were  on  the 
spot,  and  threats  had  been  heard  that  they  would  invade 
private  houses.  Whether  or  not  such  an  extreme  course 
was  actually  contemplated,  the  rumor  of  it  was  spread,  and 
armed  citizens  gathered,  bent  on  resisting  to  the  last  any 
such  attempt  of  the  state  officers.  In  Sumter  and  Florence 
meetings  were  held  and  resolutions  were  passed  to  aid  the 
citizens  of  Darlington  in  case  of  need.  As  yet  there  had 
been  no  outbreak.  But  on  March  30  the  memorable  Dar- 
lington riot  occurred,  in  which  five  lives  were  lost  and 
several  men  were  wounded.  The  trouble  arose  through  the 
interference  of  constables  in  a  quarrel  between  two  citizens. 
The  coroner's  jury,  composed  of  three  Reformers  and  two 
Conservatives,  returned  a  verdict  of  "  felonious  murder " 
against  two  of  the  constables.  Whatever  provocation  to 
violence  the  latter  had,  they  were  held  responsible  for  the 
blood  shed. 

But  the  "  riot  "  gave  rise  to  many  st;;-ange  complications, 
and  the  opposition  to  the  dispensary  law  began  anew. 
As  soon  as  the  shooting  was  over,  the  constables  had  fled, 
pursued  by  citizens.  The  news  of  the  aifair  caused  the 
intensest  excitement.  Only  the  counsel  of  cooler  heads 
prevented  rioting  in  other  towns.  The  governor  called  out 
the  militia  companies  of  Columbia,  but  they  refused  to 
obey,  preferring  rather  to  give  up  their  commissions.  Com- 
pany after  company  laid  down  their  arms  amid  the  applause 
of  citizens.  From  other  points  came  refusals  of  mili- 
tary organizations  to  proceed  to  the  seat  of  trouble.  The 
governor  then  called  out  the  rural  militia,  of  which  the 
majority  could  be  counted  as  his  political  followers. 
Florence,  where  the  dispensary  had  been  looted,  and  Dar- 
lington were  declared  under  martial  law.  Railroads  and 
telegraph  offices  were  seized  by  the  governor,  who  also 
assumed  control  of  the  entire  police  force  in  the  State. 
Business  was  at  a  standstill.     A  censorship  was  exercised 


156        THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

over  telegraph  dispatches.  Four  hundred  troops  were  con- 
centrated at  Darlington,  and  others  were  kept  in  reserve 
in  the  State  penitentiary  at  Columbia.  But  in  Darlington 
perfect  order  had  reigned  after  the  murderous  shooting. 
The  constables  who  had  been  pursued  for  a  while  were  not 
molested,  and  the  civil  authorities  were  able  to  uphold  the 
peace.  A  contemplated  looting  of  the  dispensary  was  pre- 
vented. When  the  troops  arrived  there  was  no  conflict 
between  them  and  the  citizens.  As  early  as  April  5  con- 
stables returned  to  Darlington  and  went  their  ways  un- 
harmed. The  escape  from  a  state  of  civil  war  had  been 
averted  by  a  hair's  breadth  only.  The  high-handed  course 
of  the  governor  in  seeking  to  enforce  the  unpopular  law  at 
any  hazard  had  served  only  to  increase  the  odium  in  which 
it  was  held. 

The  lull  which  now  ensued  was,  however,  largely  due  to 
the  knowledge  that  the  Supreme  Court  would  soon  pass 
upon  the  law,  and  to  the  generally  accepted  prediction 
among  its  opponents  that  it  would  be  declared  unconsti- 
tutional. 

THE    LAW    IN    THE    COURTS. 

On  April  19,  1894,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  ren- 
dered a  decision  declaring  the  law  unconstitutional.  The 
issue  had  been  raised  on  the  act  of  1892,  which  was  declared 
invalid,  except  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the  licensing  of  the 
sale  of  liquor  ;  one  justice  dissented.  Politically  the  court 
was  composed  of  two  Conservatives  and  one  Reformer, 
who  had  lately  come  into  office.  The  general  ground  taken 
in  the  decision  was  that  the  State  could  not  constitutionally 
embark  in  a  commercial  pursuit,  as  the^  selling  of  liquor  for 
profit  was  held  to  be  ;  and  that  such  sale  did  not  come 
within  the  legitimate  exercise  of  its  police  power. 

On  the  day  after  the  decision  the  State  Dispensary,  as 
well  as  the  local  shops,  were  closed  by  order  of  the  gov- 
ernor, and  all  employees  were  paid  off.      The  trial  justices 


THE   LAW   IN   THE   COURTS.  157 

throughout  the  State  were  ordered  to  refrain  from  issuing 
arrest  warrants  for  violations  of  the  dispensary  act.  To  all 
appearances  the  decision  against  the  law  was  accepted  as  final. 

Meanwhile  in  some  places  beer  and  wine  licenses  were 
issued  by  municipal  authorities  ;  in  others,  such  action  was 
discussed  ;  in  still  others,  prohibition  was  regarded  as  the 
lawful  order  of  things. 

Within  a  few  days,  however,  came  a  supplementary  de- 
cision from  the  Supreme  Court  to  the  eifect  that  the  State 
was  now  under  prohibition.  This  had  the  result  of  re- 
straining certain  municipalities  from  issuing  any  licenses, 
but  general  enforcement  of  prohibition  was  not  attempted. 
The  governor  stated  that  he  had  no  authority  to  enforce 
prohibition,  as  "  sheriffs  are  under-officers,"  and  he  had  "  no 
longer  control  of  the  police  force,  as  the  necessity  for  that 
was  not  now  at  hand."  The  constabulary,  it  was  main- 
tained, had  been  appointed  to  uphold  the  dispensary  act 
only  ;  besides,  it  would  become  a  serious  question  how  to 
pay  them  for  their  services. 

In  the  absence  of  specific  law  the  municipal  authorities 
were  not  strongly  disposed  to  interfere  with  the  liquor- 
sellers.  From  April  21  to  August  1,  1894,  no  less  than 
1,174  United  States  special  taxes  were  paid  by  retail  liquor- 
dealers  in  the  State,  showing  plainly  how  unrestricted  was 
the  traffic. 

But  afi"airs  were  not  suffered  to  remain  long  in  this  un- 
settled state.  In  a  campaign  speech  delivered  in  July,  the 
governor  announced  his  intention  of  reopening  the  dispen- 
saries the  following  month.  A  proclamation  to  this  effect 
was  issued  a  few  days  later,  in  which  the  reasons  for  set- 
ting aside  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  were  given. 
The  adverse  decision  was  the  result  of  a  suit  brought  to 
test  the  original  law  of  1892,  not  the  law  of  1893.  They 
were,  however,  held  to  be  identical  in  principle.  In  his 
message  in  1894  the  governor  said  :  — 


158        THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

"  I  fully  anticipated  a  case  being  brought  under  the  act  of 
1893,  and  a  decision  of  like  natinre  to  the  first,  .  .  .  although  I 
felt,  as  did  most  people,  that  the  decision  was  an  outrage,  and 
the  result  of  partisan  bias.  ...  I  resolved  to  thwart  the  court 
if  I  could ;  and  every  effort  was  put  forth  to  prevent  the  act  of 
1893  from  coming  before  the  court  as  it  was  then  constituted. 
.  .  .  The  act  of  1893  had  been  ignored  by  the  court  in  two 
cases,  and  a  change  in  the  court  made  me  feel  it  a  duty  to 
revive  the  act  of  1893,  and  test  the  question  of  its  constitution- 
ality once  for  all.  So,  on  July  22,  I  issued  a  proclamation 
ordering  the  dispensaries  to  be  reopened  August  1st.  .  .  .  The 
constabulary  .  .  .  was  reorganized  about  the  middle  of  August, 
and  put  to  work,  being  gradually  increased,  and  instructed  to 
close  down  on  the  liquor-dealers  by  degrees." 

The  course  taken  by  the  governor  amazed  even  his  own 
adherents.      The  proclamation  concluded  thus  :  — 

"  The  said  Supi-eme  Court,  having  adjourned  without  in  any 
wise  giving  expression  in  regard  to  the  act  of  1893,  the  said 
act  is  in  full  force  and  effect,  and  will  be  enforced  in  accord- 
ance with  my  oath  of  office  until  the  courts  shall  have  passed 
upon  the  same,  or  until  the  legislature  shall  have  repealed  it." 

One  of  the  judges  of  the  court  who  had  declared  the 
law  invalid  was  to  retire  before  many  weeks.  His  suc- 
cessor had  already  been  chosen  by  the  legislature  from  the 
party  in  sympathy  with  the  law.  This  is  the  "change  in 
the  court"  to  which  the  governor  alludes.  Relying  in 
advance  upon  the  favorable  opinion  of  the  incoming  justice, 
the  plea  that  the  act  of  1893  had  not  formally  been  passed 
upon  furnished  a  pretext  for  opening  the  dispensaries  in 
order  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  might  be  tested 
"  once  for  all."  Moreover,  the  financial  aspect  of  the  mat- 
ter was  one  of  supreme  importance. 

For  some  time  after  August  1  little  effort  was  made  to 
suppress  illicit  selling  ;  on  the  other  hand,  several  dis- 
pensers were  arrested  for  not  taking  out  a  beer  and  wine 
license  as  required  by  certain  municipalities.  Vmt  when 
the  constabulary  force  had  been  reorganized,  the  chief  exec- 


THE   LAW   IN   THE   COURTS.  159 

utive  announced  :  "  I  intend  to  enforce  the  law  up  to  the 
very  hilt ;  I  intend  to  enforce  it  if  it  takes  all  the  military 
in  the  State  to  help  me  do  it."  The  constables,  however, 
proceeded  with  greater  caution  than  formerly.  Yet  in  one 
or  two  instances  riots  were  narrowly  averted. 

Meanwhile  a  circuit  judge  had  declared  the  act  of  1893 
unconstitutional  because  identical  in  principle  with  the  one 
preceding  it.  On  October  9  the  Supreme  Court  pronounced 
the  dispensary  act  of  1893  constitutional ;  the  chief  justice 
dissenting,  adhering  to  his  former  opinion  that  the  two 
acts  were  identical  in  principle. 

When  the  State  had  thus  formally  been  declared  to  be 
under  the  dispensary  law,  liquor  raids  were  resumed  with 
increased  vigor.  To  facilitate  the  work,  a  reward  of  20 
cents  per  gallon  was  offered  to  informers  for  information 
leading  to  confiscation  of  liqiior.  This  scheme,  which  was 
not  authorized  by  law,  proved  wonderfully  successful. 

The  state  legislature,  reassembling  in  November,  was 
again  called  upon  to  amend  the  law  and  grant  the  executive 
further  power.  Under  the  same  title  that  distinguished  the 
act  of  1893,  the  dispensary  law  was  reenacled  with  numer- 
ous amendments,  and  approved  January  5,  1895. 

This  legislation  undoubtedly  strengthened  the  State's 
monopoly  of  the  liquor  traffic  :  (1)  by  facilitating  the  mul- 
tiplication of  the  official  liquor-shops ;  (2)  by  extending 
the  authority  of  the  executive,  and  enabling  him  to  remove 
any  delinquent  officer  immediately  concerned  with  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law ;  (3)  by  changes  in  the  mode  of  pro- 
cedure in  liquor  cases,  whereby  they  may  be  given  to  rural 
juries  with  better  hopes  of  conviction  on  sufficient  evidence  ; 
(4)  by  placing  breweries  and  distilleries  under  new  restric- 
tions, and  thus  further  cutting  off  competition  through  illicit 
sales  ;  (5)  by  increasing  the  penalties  ;  (C)  by  increasing  the 
number  of  officials  enjoined  to  prevent  infringement  of  the 
law  ;  and  (7)  by  putting  a  premium  on  confiscation  of  liquors 


160        THE    SOUTH    CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

by  allowing  certain  officials  one  half  of  the  proceeds  from 
their  sale.  The  law  as  it  now  stood  did  not  contain  any  pro- 
visions aiming  at  a  diminution  of  consumption  not  found  in 
the  first  act. 

Another  legal  measure  to  compel  compliance  with  the 
law  had  long  been  contemplated.  In  the  cities,  as  well  as 
in  the  majority  of  the  towns,  the  police  officials  had  shown 
little  sympathy  for  the  state  liquor  traffic,  and  had  not  con- 
cerned themselves  with  zealously  guarding  it.  The  threat 
to  withhold  from  the  municipalities  their  share  of  the  liquor 
money  for  neglect  to  fight  the  "  blind  tigers  "  had  not  been 
without  effect,  but  the  local  authorities  were  still  accused 
of  lukewarmness.  The  question  of  establishing  a  metropoli- 
tan police  had  been  broached  in  the  governor's  message  of 
1893.  The  promise  was  then  held  out  that,  when  the  co- 
operation of  the  local  police  could  be  depended  upon,  the 
expenses  of  enforcement  would  be  materially  lessened.  This 
"drastic  measure,"  as  that  message  apologetically  designated 
it,  was  openly  advocated  in  the  messages  of  1894. 

The  metropolitan  police  bill,  passed  in  December,  1894, 
provides  that  whenever  a  board  composed  of  the  governor, 
the  secretary  of  state,  and  the  comptroller-general  shall 
deem  it  advisable,  for  the  better  enforcement  of  the  law  in 
any  city  or  incorporated  town  under  police  regulations,  they 
shall  appoint  a  board  of  state  commissioners  to  consist  of 
three  members  for  such  city.  The  first  mentioned  board 
is  endowed  with  autocratic  power.  It  may  at  any  time  de- 
clare a  city  vmder  metropolitan  regulations,  and  upon  its 
consent  the  resumption  of  local  self-government  by  the 
municipal  authorities  is  absolutely  dependent.  The  local 
board  may,  with  the  consent  of  the  state  officers,  appoint 
any  number  of  special  policemen  not  to  serve  for  more  than 
two  successive  days  without  reappointment.  All  fines  and 
forfeitures  must  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  county  for 
the  use  of  the  common  school  fund,  the  city  retaining  the 
fines  for  violations  of  municipal  ordinances. 


EXTENT   OF   THE   DISPENSARY    SYSTEM.  IGl 

EXTENT    OF    THE    DISPENSARY    SYSTEM. 

There  were  at  time  of  this  investigation  eighty-one  dis- 
pensaries in  operation,  exclusive  of  those  connected  with 
tourist  hotels,  the  distributing  depot  at  Columbia,  and  the 
brewery  selling  under  state  protection.  The  growth  of  the 
official  liquor-shops  had,  therefore,  been  rapid.  There  were 
in  the  State  in  1892,  when  the  dispensary  system  was  intro- 
duced, 613  barrooms ;  in  Charleston,  where  there  had  been 
285  barrooms,  there  were  only  seven  dispensaries. 

Taking  the  counties,  Aiken,  Barnwell,  P>eaufort,  Berke- 
ley, Colleton,  Hampton,  Orangeburg,  and  Richland,  which 
all,  except  the  last  mentioned,  belong  strictly  to  the  lower 
southeastern  section  of  the  State,  thirty-nine  dispensaries 
were  found  within  them,  or  48.14  per  cent,  of  the  total 
number.  They  contain  only  373,936  inhabitants,  or  32.66 
per  cent,  of  the  total  population  in  the  State.  This  section 
includes  the  greater  portion  of  the  black  belt,  and  formerly 
supported  483  bars,  or  78.79  per  cent,  of  the  total  number 
existing  in  1892  (613).  There  was  thus  a  good  reason  why 
a  majority  of  the  dispensaries  should  be  placed  there.  No 
incorporated  communities  other  than  Charleston  and  Colum- 
bia have  more  than  one  dispensary  each.  The  dearth  of 
state  barrooms  in  the  counties  along  the  northern  and  west- 
ern borders  of  North  Carolina  is  difficult  to  account  for, 
except  on  the  ground  of  a  still  surviving  prohibitory  senti- 
ment. Yet  that  part  of  the  State  contains  the  distillery 
interest,  both  the  legal  and  illegal,  and  offers  the  best  op- 
portunities for  smugglers.  However,  the  notorious  moon- 
shine district  has  already  been  invaded  by  state  liquor- 
shops. 

Classifying  the  dispensaries  according  to  the  population 
of  the  places  in  which  they  are  situated,  we  find  more  than 
one  half,  or  44,  established  in  communities  with  less  than 
1,000  inhabitants  each,  as  follows  :  in  places  of  less  than  100 


162        THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

inhabitants,  13  ;  in  places  of  over  100  and  less  than  500  in- 
habitants, 15  ;  in  places  of  over  500  and  less  than  1,000 
inhabitants,  14.  Of  the  remaining,  18  are  established  in 
places  of  between  1,000  and  3,000  inhabitants,  8  in  so  many 
cities  of  between  3,000  and  9,000  inhabitants,  and  11  in 
Columbia  and  Charleston.  In  9  cities  and  towns  of  be- 
tween 1,000  and  3,000  inhabitants,  and  in  16  places  M'ith 
a  population  running  from  100  to  1,000,  dispensaries  are 
not  found,  and  consequently  the  sale  of  intoxicants  is  pro- 
hibited. The  "  dry "  towns  are  nearly  all  found  in  the 
up  country.  Of  the  six  counties  under  prohibition  in 
1892,  only  one  remains  wholly  so.  It  follows  that  a  num- 
ber of  the  old-time  no-license  places  now  have  state  liquor- 
shops. 

The  authorities  pursue  the  policy  of  establishing  dispen- 
saries wherever  a  favorable  opportunity  offers.  Two  ques- 
tions only  are  considered :  Will  the  proposed  dispensary 
pay,  and  can  the  necessary  number  of  voters  be  found  in 
favor  of  it  ?  The  advantage  to  the  administration  of  increas- 
ing the  dispensaries  are  a  larger  revenue  and  greater  political 
power.  The  attempts  to  force  a  dispensary  upon  a  prohibi- 
tion town  can  scarcely  spring  from  a  desire  to  promote  tem- 
perance. Bitter  local  contests  have  ensued  more  than  once 
from  this  cause  between  the  advocates  of  a  dispensary  —  of 
course,  active  supporters  of  the  Reform  party  —  and  its  op- 
ponents. The  latter,  however,  are  doubtless  actuated  less 
by  motives  of  a  purely  moral  nature  than  by  fear  of  having 
their  political  enemies  gain  a  firmer  footing.  So  demoraliz- 
ing has  this  enmity  become,  that  many,  while  strenuously 
opposing  the  opening  of  a  new  dispensary,  shut  their  eyes  to 
the  illegal  traffic.  It  is  easily  seen  how,  under  such  circum- 
stances, private  liquor-dealers  may  continue  to  influence  local 
politics. 


A  BUSINESS   VENTURE.  163 


THE    SYSTEM    AS    A    BUSINESS    VENTURE. 

Up  to  November  1,  1894,  the  system  had  been  in  opera- 
tion about  fifteen  months,  with  an  intermission  of  about 
three  months  in  1894.  During  this  period  the  business 
was  as  follows  :  — 

Total  cost  of  liquors $416,853.12 

Total  expenses 207,056.15 

Total  sale  to  dispensers 694,271.69 

Amount  due  by  dispensers  to  State     .         .  106,496.42 

Amount  cash  received  from  dispensers  .         .       553,811.13 
Amount  cash  all  other  sources    .        .        .  10,865.26 

Total  cash 1564,676.39 

Stock  at  State  dispensary  (wholesale)         •  $65,455.59 

Amount  due  by  state  dispensary     .         .         .         43,815.26 

Value  of  assets  over  liabilities    .         .         .         $147,694.95 
From  which  deduct  State  appropriation         .         50,000.00 

Net  profits $97,694.95 

The  net  profits  as  above  exhibited  include,  liowever,  the 
prospective  profits  of  the  State  upon  goods  still  in  the  hands 
of  county  dispensers  amounting  to  22  per  cent,  on  $106,- 
496.42,  or  $23,429.21.  Exclusive,  then,  of  deficits  dis- 
covered in  the  accounts  of  certain  dispensers,  the  actual 
profits  realized  up  to  November  1,  1894,  on  the  basis  of  all 
assets  given  above  being  considered  good,  would  amount  to 
$74,265.72.  This  net  profit,  again,  is  exclusive  of  interest 
upon  the  state  appropriation  of  $50,000,  and  of  the  rental 
of  buildings,  etc.,  used  by  the  dispensary.  It  will  be  seen 
that  thus  far  no  cash  from  the  liquor  business  had  been 
turned  over  for  the  use  of  the  State,  nor  had  the  original 
state  appropriation  been  refunded. 

The  business  of  the  county  dispensaries  during  the  same 
period  was  as  follows  :  — 


164        THE    SOUTH   CAKOLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

Total  amount  purchased  from  the  state  dispensary,  $671,555.99 
Total  amount  of  sales,  invoice  price         .         .         .     573,578.38 


Total  sales  to  consumers  (county  profit  added) 

Gross  profits 

Total  expense 

Total  net  profits 


$679,222.88 

165,355.40 

88,580.15 

$76,775.25 


As  a  source  of  revenue  the  system  had  not  realized  the 
glowing  expectations  of  its  advocates.  In  sixteen  months 
the  municipalities  and  counties  had  received  a  sum  from 
the  dispensaries  equaling  not  quite  one  third  of  their  usual 
annual  income  from  liquor  licenses,  —  the  former  being 
deprived  of  the  greater  amount,  —  and  the  State  had  not 
been  enriched.  The  system,  however,  had  operated  under 
adverse  circumstances,  and  not  even  continuously.  The 
growth  of  liquor-shops  and  a  gradual  extermination  of  the 
"  blind  tigers,"  which  in  many  places  is  rapidly  being 
effected,  indicate  greater  profits  in  the  future. 

THE    SYSTEM    AS    A    POLITICAL    MACHINE. 

In  absolute  control  of  this  vast  and  ever-growing  busi- 
ness, it  should  be  remembered,  are  the  governor,  the  sec- 
retary of  state,  and  the  comptroller-general.  Not  only  do 
they  appoint  the  state  commissioner,  but  in  the  absence  of 
specific  legal  provisions  they  are  required  to  prescribe  "  all 
rules  and  regulations  governing  said  commissioner  in  the 
purchase  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  in  the  performance 
of  any  of  the  duties  of  his  office."  It  is,  among  other 
things,  left  to  the  State  Board  of  Control  to  fix  the  per- 
centage of  profit  to  be  charged  by  the  State  on  its  sales 
to  local  dispensers.  Again,  these  officials  have  the  sole 
appointment  of  the  county  boards  of  control,  who  are  sub- 
ject to  thoir  rulings  in  every  matter  relating  to  the  local 
shops.  TI)ey  have  the  final  decision  in  the  questions  of 
establishing  new  dispensaries,  the  location  of  the  latter,  the 


A   POLITICAL   MACHINE,  165 

appointment  of  dispensers  and  their  assistants ;  they  fix 
the  salaries,  the  prices  at  which  liquors  shall  be  sold  to 
the  consumer,  and  so  on.  The  frequent  flippant  allu- 
sions to  the  governor  of  South  Carolina  as  the  "  chief  bar- 
keeper of  the  State  "  are  thus  not  without  foundation  in 
facts.  As  chairman  of  the  State  Board,  he  is  highest  in 
authority,  and  many  of  the  details  of  the  dispensary  busi- 
ness are  necessarily  referred  to  him.  As  an  instance,  it 
may  be  cited  that,  under  the  present  rulings,  it  is  possible 
for  private  persons,  on  paying  a  royalty  to  the  State,  to 
import  officially  protected  liquor  for  their  own  use.  Such 
transactions  are  efi'ected  through  local  dispensers,  but  only 
when  permission  has  been  obtained  from  the  governor. 
He  has  also  the  sole  and  unlimited  power  to  appoint  con- 
stables to  enforce  the  law,  and  he  directs  their  movements. 
It  is  perhaps  unavoidable  that  the  unusual  powers  thus 
conferred  upon  the  chief  executive  and  the  two  associates  of 
his  own  choosing  should  have  a  deep  political  significance. 
Party  exigency  was  the  father  of  the  dispensary  act,  party 
welfare  demanded  its  growth  and  nurture  in  the  face  of  the 
bitterest  opposition.  It  follows  that  the  men  in  any  way 
connected  with  the  state  liquor  monopoly  must  be  of  the 
same  political  faith.  More  than  this.  Since  the  establish- 
ment of  a  dispensary  means  an  assured  competence  to  one 
or  two  men  and  some  party  prestige,  accompanied  perhaps 
by  a  little  patronage  to  those  composing  the  county  boards 
of  control,  strong  partisans  are  naturally  chosen  to  fill 
those  positions.  In  other  words,  whether  this  end  was 
kept  in  view  at  the  outset,  the  dispensary  law  has  resulted 
in  the  creation  of  a  magnificent  political  machine,  with  the 
governor  as  engineer-in-chief.  For  each  of  the  eighty-one 
dispensaries  may  be  reckoned  two  employees ;  the  county 
boards  of  control  number  105  persons  ;  the  constables  about 
sixty ;  the  employees  at  the  chief  dispensary  about   fifty- 


166      THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

seven,  in  all  some  384  ^  men,  scattered  over  the  State,  and 
most  numerous  in  the  sections  v?here  the  Reform  party  is 
weakest.  All  the  constables  and  several  others  may  at  any 
time  be  sent  at  public  expense  to  any  part  of  the  State. 
Wholly  dependent  as  these  men  are  upon  the  State  Board 
of  Control  for  their  subsistence,  it  would  be  idle  to  dis- 
claim their  willingness  to  work  diligently  for  party  ends. 
Furthermore,  it  is  notorious  that  when  the  first  general 
opportunity  presented  itself  for  setting  the  machine  in  mo- 
tion —  in  the  campaign  of  1894  —  the  dispensary  forces 
were  notified  to  help  elect  the  candidates  of  their  party. 
The  potentiality  of  the  machine  was  much  enhanced  by  the 
passage  of  the  metropolitan  police  act. 

Underneath  the  opposition  lies  the  feeling  that,  in  fur- 
therance of  ostensibly  a  purely  moral  object,  the  advocates 
of  the  dispensary  system  have  grasped  the  opportunity  of 
intrenching  themselves  in  power  and  abrogated  the  rights 
of  local  self-government  in  a  manner  at  variance  with  all 
the  political  traditions  of  South  Carolina.  That  the  state 
control  of  the  sale  of  liquor  cannot  be  dissociated  from 
politics  is  admitted  by  its  promoters  to  be  an  inherent  defect 
of  the  dispensary  system. 

From  a  business  point  of  view,  the  management  of  the 
business  has  not  been  open  to  severe  criticism  founded 
on  known  facts,  although  attacks  have  been  numerous. 
Another  question  of  interest  is  whether  the  financial  or  the 
temperance  feature  is  incidental  to  the  dispensary  traffic. 
It  is  complained,  not  without  reason,  that  the  State  has 
devoted  itself  to  supplying  spirituous  instead  of  malt 
liquors,  and  that  this  action  is  detrimental  to  sobriety. 

It  is  unquestionably  of  greater  profit  to  the  State  to  sell 
the  distilled  goods.  At  present,  however,  steps  are  taken 
to  increase  the  use  of  malt  liquors,  but  in  a  peculiar  way. 

'  Trial  justices  are  appointed  by  the  executive,  and  may  be  added  to 
this  number. 


A   POLITICAL   MACHINE.  167 

The  State  has  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  largest 
hrewery  in  South  Carolina,  under  which,  on  paying  a  roy- 
alty to  the  State,  the  brewery  may  supply  its  officially  pro- 
tected wares  directly  to  the  customers.  Other  breweries 
expect  to  reopen  on  the  same  terms.  This  encouragement  of 
the  home  industry  (outside  breweries  cannot  be  granted 
similar  concessions)  is  not  easily  harmonized  with  the  often 
reiterated  declaration  that  the  dispensary  system  does  not 
rest  upon  a  revenue  basis,  and  was  devised  to  reduce  the 
consumption  of  intoxicants.  A  curious  result  of  this  dis- 
crimination is  that  the  largest  brewery  in  the  State,  under 
protection  of  the  government  seal,  supplied  all  the  beer 
dispensed  by  the  "  blind  tigers  "  of  Charleston  and  perhaps 
other  places.  Home-made  liquors  are  required  to  be  bought 
in  preference  to  imported  ones.  This  attempt  at  "  saving 
the  profit  at  home  "  has  led  to  much  illegal  selling  by  dis- 
tillers, as  well  as  to  the  state  purchase  of  an  article  unlit  for 
consumption  by  reason  of  its  newness,  and  one  that  is  highly 
intoxicating.  Nor  can  the  fostering  of  the  wine-growing  in- 
dustry—  the  products  of  which,  to  the  exclusion  of  wines 
grown  elsewhere,  must  be  handled  by  the  dispensary  at  a 
profit  not  exceeding  10  per  cent.  —  be  regarded  in  the  light 
of  a  prohibitive  measure.  A  strange  blending  of  moral  and 
business  purposes  is  found  in  the  provisions  relating  to  the 
sale  of  confiscated  liquors  through  the  state  commission  : 
if  pure,  they  find  their  way  to  the  local  dispensaries,  but  if 
impure  are  to  be  shipped  for  sale  beyond  the  State.  The 
State  persists  in  selling  "  straight  liquor  "  only,  regardless 
of  its  intoxicating  qualities. 

An  obvious  danger  of  the  dispensary  system  is  the  temp- 
tation to  accept  undue  profits  constantly  besetting  those  who 
purchase  the  state  liquor.  Any  one  in  the  least  familiar 
with  the  methods  of  the  liquor  trade  knows  that,  under  the 
keen  competition  existing,  inducements  in  the  line  of  rebates 
or  commissions  are  held  out  to  those  who  purchase  goods, 


168       THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

especially  if  it  be  for  others.  Without  any  apparent  detri- 
ment to  the  interest  of  the  person  for  whom  the  liquor  is 
bought,  by  way  of  exorbitant  prices  being  paid  for  it,  only 
the  strictest  honesty  prevents  the  purchaser  from  receiving 
emoluments  for  which  he  cannot  be  held  to  account,  which 
remain  a  secret  between  him  and  the  seller,  but  which  it 
was  not  intended  he  should  receive.  The  implication  is 
that,  when  this  temptation  is  not  withstood,  it  becomes  the 
immediate  interest  of  the  purchasers  to  push  the  sale  of 
liquors  to  the  utmost :   hence  the  twofold  danger. 

Considerable  difficulty  has  been  experienced  in  obtaining 
trustworthy  men  to  conduct  the  business  of  the  county 
liquor-shops.  Under  the  strong  opposition  to  the  opening 
of  such  places  and  to  the  law  in  general,  the  vocation  of 
dispenser  has  not  been  attractive  to  the  better  class  of  men. 
Some  of  those  employed  have  at  times  been  short  in  their 
accounts,  and  in  other  ways  have  shown  themselves  unfitted 
for  the  trust.  Latterly  the  body  of  dispensers  is  supposed 
to  have  been  much  improved,  and,  a  rigid  system  of  book- 
keeping being  insisted  upon,  the  temptation  to  peculations 
is  less.  But  even  now  the  men  are  not  recruited  from  citi- 
zens of  any  particular  standing  in  the  respective  communi- 
ties. 

The  method  of  compensating  county  dispensers,  fixing 
their  salaries  according  to  the  business  done,  gives  the 
key-note  to  the  manner  in  which  they  conduct  it.  To  con- 
tend that  the  element  of  private  profits  has  been  eliminated 
from  the  dispensary  liquor  traffic  is  thus  seen  to  be  idle. 
In  principle  the  county  dispenser  is  placed  on  a  level  with 
the  private  dealer :  both  have  the  same  motive  to  push 
trade  —  private  gain.  Only  few  dispensers  receive  the 
maximum  compensation  now  allowed ;  but  should  the  size 
of  the  sales  warrant  it,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  present  salary  limit  will  be  adhered  to. 

As  may  readily  be  inferred,  the  method  of  compensation 


A   POLITICAL   MACHINE.  1G9 

goes  far  to  nullify  the  legal  restraints  placed  on  the  sale.  The 
regulations  of  the  law,  that  tlie  purchaser  must  present  a 
written  or  printed  request,  giving  name,  age,  residence,  for 
whose  use  the  liquor  is  intended,  are  generally  disregarded. 
The  customer  simply  makes  a  verbal  request,  giving  his 
name  and  the  kind  of  liquor  wanted.  As  a  rule  further 
parlance  is  unnecessary.  That  the  purchaser  is  totally 
unknown  to  the  dispenser  apparently  makes  no  difference, 
although  the  law  requires  the  identification  of  strangers. 
That  more  than  one  order  is  filled  for  the  same  person  in 
one  day  was  noted ;  furthermore,  that  orders  written  by 
strangers,  and  carried  by  children,  are  promptly  attended  to. 
Purchasers  are  rarely  questioned  as  to  their  ages,  although 
the  majorit)'^  of  some  of  them  would  instantly  be  challenged, 
were  that  point  considered  of  sufficient  importance.  Intox- 
icated persons  are  turned  away,  but  there  is  nothing  to  pre- 
vent them  from  making  purchases  through  others.  Several 
dispensers  intimated  that  more  than  a  formal  compliance 
with  the  law  is  not  insisted  upon.  This  was  not  explicitly 
denied  at  headquarters.  Indeed,  the  safeguards  of  the  law 
cannot  well  prove  effective  while  there  is  a  source  of  private 
profits  in  large  sales.  Furthermore,  the  press  of  business 
at  some  dispensaries  is  too  great  to  permit  of  an  elaborate 
mode  of  procedure  in  making  the  sales. 

But  for  the  extensive  patronage  of  the  negroes,  the  dis- 
pensaries would  not  fare  well  financially,  because  of  the 
antipathy  to  the  state  liquor  traffic  among  the  white  resi- 
dents of  towns  and  cities,  in  Avhich  nearly  all  the  shops 
are  located.  The  staple  articles  of  trade  are  the  cheap 
grades  of  whiskey.  As  sold  by  the  State,  beer  is  as  yet  too 
expensive  a  beverage  to  be  generally  indulged  in.  The  rate 
of  profit  charged  by  the  county  dispensaries  varies  greatly 
and  according  to  the  quality  of  the  liquor.  To  cite  a  few 
instances  :  — 


170       THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 


ighty  per  cent.  Rye,  Corn,  and  Bourbon, 

profit 

12  per  cent. 

X  Rye,  Bourbon,  etc. 

16    "      " 

XX    " 

17    "      " 

XXX    " 

19    "      " 

XXXX    "    and  Scotch 

27    «     " 

Beer 

25    "     " 

Ale 

18    "     « 

The  profits  charged  on  the  low  grade  of  goods  are  not 
such  as  to  discourage  consumption  ;  and  unless  the  State 
sells  nearly  at  cost,  it  cannot  prevent  illicit  selling  from  be- 
ing remunerative.  A  comparison  of  the  profits  on  the  low 
and  high  grades  would  therefore  seem  to  lead  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  eff'orts  are  not  made  to  diminish  the  consumption 
of  the  liquors  constituting  the  bulk  of  the  traffic. 

ENFORCEMENT    OF    THE    LAW. 

It  is  quite  within  the  truth  to  say  that  no  substitute  for 
a  license  system  has  been  so  thoroughly  enforced  in  this 
country  as  the  dispensary  act  of  South  Carolina.  On  so- 
cial and  political  grounds  the  opposition  to  the  law  has  been 
and  is  exceedingly  bitter.  Yet  while  it  cannot  be  said 
that  the  law  is  no  longer  evaded  even  by  the  private  citizen 
who  never  traded  in  the  contraband  goods,  its  mandates  are 
generally  heeded,  but  from  necessity  rather  than  from  choice. 
A  strong  force  of  constabulary,  which  may  be  augumented  at 
will  by  the  governor,  is  everywhere  at  work  ferreting  out 
violations  of  the  law,  watching  railroad  stations,  steamboat 
landings,  express  offices,  and  other  avenues  of  commerce. 
Having  large  powers,  they  make  the  importation  of  contra- 
band liquor  a  most  difficult  operation,  no  matter  under 
what  disguise  it  may  be  shipped.  Barrels  and  boxes  ap- 
parently containing  flour,  pork,  and  other  merchandise  are 
frequently  searched  for  liquor.  Every  suspicious  looking 
package  may  be  retained  twenty -four  hours  for  examination. 
But  quite  as  efiective,  if  not  more  efi"ective,  than  the  pres- 
ence of  constabulary  is  the  offer  of  the  reward  of  twenty 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  THE   LAW.  171 

cents  per  gallon  for  information  leading  to  seizures.  By 
this  means  the  authorities  have  frequently  learned  in  ad- 
vance that  on  such  and  such  a  day  a  certain  consignee 
would  expect  a  shipment  of  liquor.  Private  persons  no 
less  than  the  would-be  seller  have  learned  to  dread  the  in- 
former. Fear  of  him  again  necessitates  extreme  caution 
on  the  part  of  the  violator  of  the  law  over  against  his  cus- 
tomers. 

Two  legal  measures  force  an  oftentimes  unwilling  obedi- 
ence to  the  law.  One  is  the  threat  to  withhold  from  the 
incorporated  communities  their  share  of  the  dispensary  earn- 
ings for  neglect  to  suppress  the  "  blind  tigers."  In  more 
than  one  instance  municipal  authorities  have  acknowledged 
that  fear  of  losing  the  revenue  has  necessitated  a  semblance 
of  police  activity  in  executing  the  law.  The  other  is  the 
metropolitan  police,  which  hangs  like  a  sword  over  the  heads 
of  several  of  the  larger  cities.  It  is  dreaded,  not  only  be- 
cause of  the  awkward  entanglements  it  might  cause,  but 
even  more  on  account  of  the  new  power  the  ruling  party 
would  wield  through  it. 

In  every  municipality,  with  the  exception  of  Charleston, 
the  law  is  well  enforced,  and  even  in  the  latter  contraband 
liquors  have  ceased  to  be  an  important  factor  in  consump- 
tion. Many  "  blind  tigers  "  still  survive,  but  they  lead  a 
precarious  existence ;  in  numerous  places  they  have  been 
driven  to  become  ambulators  (pocket  peddlers).  Charles- 
ton is  believed  by  the  best  authorities  to  harbor  from  100 
to  150  places  where  liquor  is  sold  Avith  more  or  less  regu- 
larity. When  other  supplies  fail  them,  the  illicit  venders 
can  always  sell  the  State  protected  malt  liquors.  Brewery 
delivery  wagons  are  commonly  seen  unloading  goods  in 
front  of  notorious  "  blind  tigers."  The  goods  cannot  be 
seized,  since  the  dealer  solemnly  asserts  that  they  are  for  his 
own  use.  The  State  Board  of  Control  is  itself  responsible  for 
the  continuance  of  much  of  the  illicit  traffic  in   Charleston, 


172        THE   SOUTH   CAEOLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

and  has  placed  strong  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  police, 
who  display  much  activity  in  enforcing  the  law.  The  real 
difficulty,  however,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  "  blind  tigers  " 
draAV  patronage  from  the  otherwise  law-abiding  members 
of  society,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  secure  convictions. 
Citizens  to  whom  the  epithet  "  lawbreakers  "  would  seem 
the  least  applicable,  do  not  hesitate  to  smuggle  in  liquor. 
Attempts  to  secure  communion  wine  in  this  way  have  re- 
cently been  made.  Threats  of  "  trouble,"  meaning  bodily 
conflict,  should  constables  attempt  a  search  of  their  homes, 
are  still  made  by  men  who,  both  from  their  professions  and 
standing,  are  accounted  the  most  peace-loving  of  citizens. 

While  the  municipalities  are  more  and  more  brought 
under  the  stern  hand  of  the  dispensary  system,  it  is  not  so 
with  many  rural  districts  where  the  liquor  traffic  was  for- 
merly little  known,  that  northwestern  portion  of  the  State 
referred  to  as  the  "  Dark  Corner  "  always  excepted.  There 
the  United  States  revenue  officers  have  for  years  waged  war 
against  "  moonshiners "  with  indifi'erent  success,  and  the 
state  authorities  are  equally  powerless  to  suppress  them. 
From  the  hill  districts  the  itinerant  liquor  peddler  obtains 
his  supplies,  or  he  may  smuggle  them  across  the  northern 
border  through  other  than  the  usual  channels  of  commerce. 

At  all  events,  from  the  various  sections  of  the  State  come 
reports  like  these,  in  response  to  inquiries  made  by  the 
writer :  "  There  has  been  a  marked  increase  of  drunkenness 
in  the  county,  as  '  blind  tigers '  may  be  found  at  every  cross- 
road, and  whiskey  wagons  do  a  large  business."  From  an- 
other county  :  "  Drunkenness  and  disorderly  conduct  have 
very  materially  decreased  in  the  city,  but  have  very  greatly 
increased  in  the  country  outside  the  city,  where  they  have 
no  police  protection  or  vigilance,"  etc.  Evidence  is  thus 
at  hand  warranting  the  belief  that  the  rural  districts  are 
beginning  to  suff'er  the  very  ills  from  which  thoy  wished  to 
relieve  tlie  town  through  the  dispensary  system. 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE    LAW.  173 

The  distilleries,  although  having  the  State  as  chief  cus- 
tomer, are  not  inclined  to  obey  its  laws.  Not  a  single  one 
of  the  forty-three  registered  distilleries  has  so  far  made 
the  returns  of  its  business  required  by  the  dispensary  act. 
Efforts  to  compel  them  to  do  so  have  led  to  conflict  with  the 
federal  authorities.  Several  distillers  have  been  accused 
of  selling  liquor  to  consumers,  and  keeping  '■'■  a  large-sized 
*  speak-easy '  establishment  in  conjunction  with  their  dis- 
tillery." 

Notwithstanding  these  numerous  leaks,  the  State  monop- 
oly is,  on  the  whole,  well  protected.  The  most  conclusive 
evidence  on  this  point  comes  from  wholesale  liquor-dealers 
in  Augusta,  Atlanta,  and  other  cities  in  Georgia  who  testify 
that  since  the  introduction  of  the  dispensary  system  their 
business  with  South  Carolina  has  almost  ceased. 

The  increase  of  convictions  in  the  United  States  courts 
for  violations  of  the  revenue  laws  does  not,  as  has  been 
held,  indicate  a  proportionate  growth  of  the  illegal  traffic. 
For  an  extended  period  subsequent  to  the  enactment  of  the 
first  dispensary  law,  dealers  did  not  hesitate  to  protect  them- 
selves against  the  federal  authorities  by  paying  the  required 
special  tax.  Now  but  very  few  dare  do  so,  lest  they  furnish 
evidence  against  themselves  to  the  State.  But  if  caught 
selling  without  having  paid  the  United  States  tax,  they  are 
generally  convicted  in  the  federal  courts. 

The  attorney-general  in  his  report  for  the  year  ending 
October  31,  1893,  cites  in  all  forty-five  prosecutions,  most 
of  them  in  Charleston,  which  up  to  that  time  had  been 
brought  for  violation  of  the  dispensary  act ;  not  a  single  one 
resulting  in  a  final  conviction.  It  was  then  believed  that 
the  severity  of  the  penalties  precluded  the  possibility  of  city 
juries  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty.  The  proposition  was 
agitated  of  dispensing,  if  possible,  with  jury  trials  in  liquor 
cases,  and  to  impose  the  duty  of  trying  them  upon  a  special 
officer  .   .  .  to  be  designated  in  each  county.     Pending  the 


174       THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY    SYSTEM. 

.decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law,  it  was  natural  that  the  difficulties  in  obtaining  con- 
victions should  continue,  notwithstanding  the  lighter  penal- 
ties provided.  The  two  decisions  of  that  tribunal  taking 
opposite  ground  did  not  mend  matters  much.  The  disre- 
spect in  which  the  law  was  held  by  many  had,  if  anything, 
grown. 

From  the  report  of  the  attorney-general  for  the  year 
ending  October  31,  1894,  it  appears  that  only  one  convic- 
tion resulted  from  the  many  arrests  of  illicit  dealers.  This 
solitary  case  was  for  "  hauling  liquor ;  "  and  since  the  penalty 
involved  a  fine  of  less  than  $100,  action  could  be  brought 
before  a  trial  justice.  In  ninety-four  cases,  true  bills  were 
not  found,  or  they  were  '*  discontinued."  Three  trials  by 
jury  resulted  in  the  verdict,  "  not  guilty."  The  majority 
of  these  cases  originated  in  Charleston.  In  his  message  of 
1894  Governor  Tillman  said  of  this  city  :  — 

"  The  temper  of  the  people  is  such  that  it  is  idle  to  expect 
juries  to  punish  lawbreakers  in  whiskey  cases ;  and  the  same 
is  true  of  Beaufort  and  some  other  places.  Last  year  I  advised 
reduction  of  penalties  and  fines,  and  placing  the  administration 
in  the  hands  of  trial  justices.  It  was  a  mistake.  Most  of  the 
illicit  selling  is  by  townspeople,  and  the  juries  in  the  towns 
will  not  convict,  no  matter  how  clear  the  evidence." 

The  truth  of  the  latter  assertion  has  been  demonstrated  in 
Charleston.  From  December,  1894,  to  the  middle  of  April, 
1895,  204  arrests  for  illegal  selling  were  made  by  the  police. 
In  each  case  liquor  was  seized  on  the  premises,  and  the 
finding  of  it  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  violation  of  the  law. 
The  grand  jury  refused  to  consider  the  most  positive  evi- 
dence. Case  after  case  was  thrown  out.  Only  one  came  to  a 
jury  trial,  and  that  had  no  result.  On  the  grand  jury  was, 
among  others,  a  man  who  had  himself  been  arrested  under 
the  dispensary  act.  The  only  conviction  obtained  so  far 
in   Charleston   has   been   in    the   case   for   hauling   liquor. 


ENFORCEMENT    OF   THE    LAW.  175 

heard  before  a  trial  justice.  How  far  the  number  of  cases 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  courts  correspond  to  the 
number  of  arrests  made  under  the  dispensary  law  is  not 
known.  Complete  returns  from  the  police  are  lacking,  and 
the  doings  of  the  constables  are  not  published.  At  present 
the  latter  seem  to  apply  themselves  to  the  prevention  of 
smuggling,  and  less  to  securing  evidence  against  "  blind 
tigers."  The  confiscation  of  contraband  goods  is  apparently 
regarded  as  sufficient  penalty  in  some  cases,  and  prosecu- 
tions are  not  made,  especially  when  the  attempted  smug- 
gling is  shown  to  have  been  for  private  use  only. 

The  feeling  against  the  law  was  illustrated  at  the  first 
jury  trials  of  dispensary  cases  which  have  taken  place  in 
Columbia  (April,  1895).  The  judge  placed  every  juryman 
presented  under  his  voir  cUi'e.  When  the  second  case  was 
reached,  the  panel  had  already  been  exhausted.  Quite  a 
number  of  jurors  were  excused  by  the  court  since  they  con- 
fessed inability  to  overcome  their  prejudices  against  the  law 
and  return  a  verdict  simply  on  the  facts.  The  second  day 
of  the  trials  it  was  reported  that  "  some  of  the  very  best 
men  in  the  community  were  excused  from  serving  on  the 
jury  "  for  the  reasons  given.  In  some  of  the  cases  tried  at 
this  time  the  jury  were  unable  to  agree ;  in  others  the  plea 
of  guilty  was  entered,  with  the  understanding  that  only  a 
light  penalty  should  be  imposed. 

If  the  courts  have  been  brought  into  disrepute  by  the 
opponents  of  the  dispensary  system,  its  advocates  are  equally 
to  be  blamed.  The  judges  who  have  taken  a  stand  against 
the  law  have  been  repeatedly  vilified  by  the  administration, 
accused  of  partisanship,  and  at  an  opportune  moment  have 
been  pushed  aside.  Constables  who  have  been  convicted 
of  various  offenses  have  been  pardoned  by  the  executive. 
The  tardiness  with  which  the  State  has  proceeded,  if  at  all, 
against  dispensers  found  short  in  their  accounts  is  evidence 
of  the  same  nature. 


176        THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA    DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

If  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  can  be  shown  to  have  de- 
creased materially  under  the  dispensary  law,  the  inference 
is  warranted  that  consumption  has  fallen  off  in  some  pro- 
portion. 

Charleston  had  in  1890  a  population  of  54,955.  The 
colored  inhabitants  constituted  31,036,  and  no  class  of  dis- 
tinct drinking  propensities,  such  as  is  commonly  found  in 
large  manufacturing  towns,  exists.  On  the  whole  the  con- 
ditions do  not  seem  unfavorable  to  the  enforcement  of 
stringent  liquor  laws.  In  1892  the  city  contained  285 
places  where  liquor  was  sold,  each  paying  $110  annually 
for  the  privilege.  The  local  ordinances  regulating  their 
business  were  by  no  means  severe  nor  rigidly  enforced.  The 
passage  of  the  dispensary  act  caused  some  dealers  to  retire 
or  go  elsewhere.  Others  preferred  to  remain  and  take  all 
risks.  How  grossly  the  law  was  violated  at  first  has  already 
been  shown.  Not  until  toward  the  close  of  1894  had  a 
systematic  war  of  extermination  been  carried  on  against  the 
"  blind  tigers,"  and  still  many  of  them  live,  but  in  numer- 
ous cases  in  a  state  of  semi-captivity.  In  spite  of  these 
untoward  circumstances,  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  have 
diminished  in  a  remarkable  degree  under  the  dispensary 
system,  as  shown  by  the  following  statistics  :  — 

In  1888  the  total  arrests  for  drunkenness,  and  for  drunken- 
ness and  disorderly  conduct,  715,  or  13.25  per  1,000  inhab- 
itants; in  1889,  868,  or  15.03;  in  1890,  801,  or  14.57;  in 
1891,  849,  or  15.31 ;  1892,  690,  or  12.33 ;  1893,  412,  or  7.29 ; 
1894,  459,  or  8.06. 

The  relatively  low  rate  of  arrests  per  one  thousand  in- 
habitants for  all  the  years  given  must  be  ascribed  to  the 
comparative  sobriety  of  the  city  rather  than  to  a  lax  police 
regime.  While  the  punishment  for  intoxication  does 
not  probably  act  as  deterrent  to  a  perceptible  degree,  the 
authorities    show    quite    the     ordinary    zeal     in    removing 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW.  177 

drunken  persons  from  the  streets.^  The  falling  off  for 
1892  has  not  been  accounted  for  as  due  to  any  abnormal 
conditions.  The  statistics  for  1893  show  that,  although 
the  dispensary  act  went  into  force  only  in  July,  and  illicit 
selling  remained  common,  the  arrests  per  1,000  inhabitants 
fell  off  40.87  per  cent,  as  compared  with  1892,  and  52.38 
per  cent,  as  compared  with  1891.  The  increase  in  1894 
over  the  former  year  was  unquestionably  due  to  the  closing 
of  the  dispensaries  from  April  22  to  August  1,  and  the  free- 
dom with  which  liquor  was  sold  for  some  time  after  they 
were  opened  again.  For  the  two  quarters  ending  June  30 
and  September  30  that  year,  the  arrests  exceeded  those  for 
the  first  and  last  quarter  by  56.42  per  cent.  The  charge 
that  antipathy  toward  the  dispensary  law  has  induced  the 
police  to  refrain  from  making  arrests  with  the  former  zeal 
lacks  substantiation. 

Columbia,  the  second  city  in  South  Carolina,  had  in  1890 
a  population  of  15,352,  of  which  8,789,  or  57.24  per  cent., 
were  colored,  and  only  321  of  foreign  birth.  In  1892  it 
had  38  bars  paying  low  fees ;  the  restraints  upon  the  licen- 
sees  were  few.  As  the  capital  of  the  State,  one  of  the 
largest  railway  centres,  and  containing  a  number  of  large 
factories,  it  was  not  surprising  that  Columbia  should  suiJ- 
port  an  extensive  liquor  traffic.  The  process  of  putting 
down  the  illegal  venders  when  the  dispensary  act  went  into 
force  was  slow.  Not  until  the  metropolitan  police  bill 
passed,  December,  1894,  did  the  municipal  authorities  push 
the  work  with  some  vigor.  A  study  of  the  statistics  indi- 
cates, contrary  to  the  assertion  of  city  officials,  that  the  arrests 
for  drunkenness  have  fallen  off  to  an  appreciable  extent. 

In  1891  total  arrests  for  drunkenness,  247,  or  15.85  per  1,000 
inhabitants;  in  1892,  201,  or  12.71;  in  1893,  187,  or  11.66;  in 
1894,  182,  or  11.19. 

1  Previous  to  1804,  the  incorporated  communities  regulated  the  penalty' 
for  drunkenness  in  the  ahscnce  of  a  general  law.  Usually  it  consisted  in 
a  fine  of  $5  to  5F10,  or  imprisonment  for  one  or  several  weeks. 


178       THE   SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM. 

The  reduction  per  1,000  inhabitants  in  1893,  as  com- 
pared with  the  preceding  year,  was  8.26  per  cent.,  and  as 
compared  with  1891,  26.43  per  cent.  During  the  first  part 
of  1893,  only  a  fraction  of  the  saloons  doing  business  in 
the  preceding  year  kept  open.  The  unlicensed  traffic  did 
not  increase  materially  when  the  dispensaries  closed ;  the 
authorities  did  not,  as  elsewhere,  grant  beer  and  wine  li- 
censes ;  and  in  consequence  the  arrests  for  May,  June,  and 
July,  1894,  do  not  show  any  increase  over  other  months  of 
the  year.  From  75  to  80  per  cent,  of  the  persons  arrested 
for  drunkenness  are  colored.  It  is  stated  that  drunkenness 
among  the  rural  population  in  the  vicinity  of  Columbia  is 
more  common  than  before. 

For  Greenville,  the  third  largest  city  in  the  State  (esti- 
mated population  in  1891,  6,405 ;  in  1894,  7,140),  the  sta- 
tistics are  :  — 

Total  arrests  for  drunkenness  and  disorderly  conduct  in  1891, 
938;  1892,  1,142;  1893,  651;  1894,  525. 

About  one  third  of  the  arrests  should  be  deducted,  for 
they  are  for  disorderly  conduct  not  caused  by  drink.  A 
great  improvement  is  seen  to  have  taken  place  under  the 
dispensary  system  (1893)  ;  this,  however,  is  attributed  to 
the  "  severe  punishment  and  heavy  fines  imposed  for  viola- 
tion of  city  ordinances  by  the  present  city  administration  " 
(which  took  office  in  September  that  year).  These  are 
treble  the  amount  of  the  former  penalties,  and  would,  it  is 
asserted,  "  preserve  the  same  order  we  have  now  if  the  16 
barrooms  were  open,  as  we  had  them  before  the  dispensary 
act  became  law."  But  in  the  two  months  preceding  the 
present  administration  the  law  had  been  in  operation  and 
caused  a  notable  diminution  in  arrests. 

In  other  cities  of  the  State,  Spartanburg,  Aiken,  Orange- 
burg, Florence,  Darlington,  Georgetown,  and  the  rest,  the 
information  collected  shows  conclusively  that  the  arrests  for 
drunkenness  have  fallen  off  from  one  third  to  one  half 
under  the  dispensary  law. 


GENEEAL   SUMMARY   OF  RESULTS.  179 

It  is  then,  beyond  all  cavil,  true  that  in  the  cities  and 
towns  formerly  under  license  the  dispensary  law  has  pro- 
moted sobriety  and  in  a  truly  Avonderful  degree.  The  many 
evils  inseparable  from  the  saloons,  and  which  have  been 
abolished  with  them,  need  not  be  dwelt  upon.  It  is  equally 
self-evident  that  less  drinking  means  better  conduct  and 
greater  peace  in  the  community. 

As  to  the  effects  of  establishing  dispensaries  in  places 
formerly  under  prohibition,  advocates  of  prohibition  assert 
that  no-license  has  generally  proved  a  success,  while  the 
dispensary  advocates  assert  that  the  illicit  sales  in  "  dry  " 
towns  far  exceeded  the  present  transactions  of  the  state 
liquor-shops  and  were  productive  of  greater  evil. 

Judging  from  the  reported  sales  of  some  dispensaries, 
their  capacity  in  distributing  intoxicants  is  far  greater 
than  that  of  ordinary  saloons.  Thus  in  one  place  of  less 
than  two  thousand  inhabitants,  which  formerly  had  two 
bars,  the  monthly  sale  of  liquor  has  reached  the  sum  of 
about  $2,700,  which  would  equal  $32,400  per  year  and 
yield  a  profit  to  town  and  county  of  about  $5,000.  The 
policy  of  compelling  the  purchaser  to  buy  more  than  one 
drink  at  the  time  —  never  less  than  one  half  pint  —  is  a 
questionable  method  of  encouraging  consumption  and  is  by 
some  believed  to  have  stimulated  home  drinking.  The  in- 
crease of  drunkenness  in  many  rural  districts  due  to  the 
traveling  "  blind  tigers  "  has  already  been  noted. 

So  far  as  the  cities  and  large  towns  are  concerned,  the 
dispensary  system  has  already  reached  the  limits  of  its  use- 
fulness as  a  temperance  agent.  Any  further  addition  to 
the  state  liquor-shops  in  the  cities  where  they  already  exist 
would  be  a  direct  invitation  to  drink.  With  the  law  so 
generally  and  rigidly  enforced  as  at  present,  any  multi- 
plication of  dispensaries  in  semi-rural  districts  can  have  no 
other  purpose  than  to  raise  revenue  and  put  more  wheels 
into  the  political  machine. 


180       THE    SOUTH   CAROLINA   DISPENSARY   SYSTEM, 

Wliile  the  unbiased  observer  cannot  fail  to  be  impressed 
by  the  changes  wrought  by  a  system  which  has  closed  the 
saloons  and  nearly  suppressed  the  illicit  traffic,  thousands 
remain  blind  to  them.  The  political  opponents  of  the  dis- 
pensary authorities  most  often  deny  that  aught  good  has 
been  accomplished.  The  prohibitionists  will  frequently 
not  even  admit  that  drunkenness  has  been  reduced ;  the 
system  never  had  nor  can  have  any  affiliations  with  radical 
temperance  reformers. 

1895.  

Since  the  above  was  Avritten,  the  dispensary  law  has  on 
several  occasions  figured  in  the  courts,  but  its  constitu- 
tionality is  still  to  be  passed  on  by  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court.  Meantime  the  barroom,  where  liquor  is 
retailed  by  the  glass,  has  been  banished  from  South  Caro- 
lina. The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1895  framed  an 
article  on  intoxicating  liquors,  which  leaves  it  optional 
with  the  legislature  to  continue  the  dispensary  system,  or 
to  pass  a  prohibitory  law,  or  to  grant  licenses  for  the  sale 
of  liquor  in  packages,  not  to  be  consumed  on  the  premises. 
It  is  also  provided  that  the  State's  share  of  the  profits  from 
the  traffic  shall  be  devoted  to  the  public  schools. 

The  business  of  liquor  selling  at  the  dispensaries  is 
flourishing. 

On  January  17,  1897,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
decided  that  those  provisions  of  the  South  Carolina  dispen- 
sary law  which  forbid  citizens  of  the  State  from  importing 
liquors  into  the  State  for  their  own  use  are  in  contraven- 
tion of  the  Interstate  Commerce  clause  of  the  national  Con- 
stitution, and  therefore  invalid.  The  decision  leaves  the 
question  whether  it  is  competent  for  a  State,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  police  power,  to  monopolize  the  traffic  in  intoxicating 
liquors  and  thus  put  itself  into  competition  with  the  citi- 
zens of  other  States,  in  abeyance. 

1897. 


PRESENT   CONDITION   OF   THE    SYSTEM.  180ct 

The  dispensary  act  has  been  twice  reenacted  bodily,  in 
1896  and  again  in  1897,  apparently  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  the  effects  of  previous  decisions  of  the  courts  by 
securing  a  pretext  for  fresh  argument  on  an  alleged  new 
act.  Two  important  changes  in  the  law  must  be  noted  : 
(1)  A  State  Board  of  Control,  of  five  members,  is  now 
elected  by  the  General  Assembly,  to  serve  for  one,  two, 
three,  four,  and  five  years  respectively ;  formerly  the 
board  consisted  of  the  governor,  the  comptroller-general, 
and  the  attorney-general.  (2)  A  provision  relative  to  the 
importation  for  private  use  of  liquors  from  without  the 
State  requires  samples  of  such  liquors  to  be  analyzed  by 
the  State  Chemist  in  advance  of  their  importation,  and 
that  his  certificate  as  to  ''  purity  "  be  attached  to  each 
package  purchased.  By  prescribing  an  impracticable  ex- 
amination of  liquors  on  the  ground  of  public  welfare,  it 
was  hoped  to  circumvent  the  tendency  of  previous  court 
decisions  to  allow  the  importation  of  liquors  for  private 
use.  But  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case 
of  Scott  and  Donald  (17  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  265),  on  the  right 
of  a  person  in  South  Carolina  to  purchase  wine  from  Cali- 
fornia, held  that  so  far  as  the  dispensary  act  prohibits  this 
it  was  unconstitutional.  Although  the  court  did  not  pass 
upon  the  abstract  right  of  the  State  to  regulate  the  liquor 
traffic  on  the  dispensary  plan,  the  language  of  the  decision 
was  construed  to  imply  the  doom  of  the  dispensaries.  This 
belief  became  so  universal  that  "  original  package  "  stores 
were  at  once  opened  in  great  numbers  and  sold  liquors 
freely.  The  United  States  Circuit  Court,  on  trial,  held 
this  business  to  be  lawful,  and  the  case  of  Vance  v.  Van- 
dercook  Company  was  carried  up  on  appeal  to  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  all  questions  being  by  consent  raised 
in  the  record.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  (May, 
1898,  18  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  674)  proved  a  shock  to  the  liquor 
interest.     It  so   far  reversed    the    decision    in    Scott  and 


180^*      THE    SOUTH   CAKOLINA   DISPENSARY    SYSTEM. 

Donald  as  to  hold  that,  while  persons  may  import  liquor 
for  private  use,  they  may  not  sell  it  even  in  the  original 
packages. 

But  of  far  greater  importance  was  the  declaration  that 
the  dispensary  acts  in  their  essential  features  are  valid, 
that  is,  furnish  a  proper  and  constitutional  method  of  regu- 
lating the  liquor  traffic  through  the  domestic  police  power, 
and  that  the  State  may  take  sole  charge  of  the  business. 
For  the  first  time  in  its  history,  the  dispensary  system  is 
no  longer  hampered  by  court  decisions,  but  has  been  left 
by  them  in  a  reasonable  and  on  the  whole  satisfactory 
state. 

The  present  condition  of  the  system  in  South  Carolina 
may  be  summed  up  as  follows  :  — 

The  dispensary  question  is  no  longer  a  serious  factor  in 
politics.  At  a  State  Democratic  Convention  this  year  (the 
white  people  of  the  State)  the  system  was  indorsed  by  a 
very  large  majority.  It  is  still  opposed  by  the  Prohibi- 
tionists on  principle,  and  by  the  remnant  of  the  "  Straight 
Out  "  party  (Conservatives)  for  politics.  But  the  former 
seem  inclined  to  accept  the  law,  at  least  as  a  stepping-stone 
to  more  rigid  legislation,  and  the  "  Straight  Out  "  party  is 
politically  dead,  party  lines  being  formed«on  new  issues. 

The  liquor  interest  (the  "  Blind  Tigers  "  excepted)  is  de- 
moralized and  has  disbanded.  In  certain  localities  "  Blind 
Tigers  "  are  still  quite  numerous,  but  wield  little  influence 
politically  and  are  getting  into  public  disfavor. 

The  privilege  to  import  liquors  for  private  use  has 
robbed  the  "  personal  rights  "  people  of  their  chief  griev- 
ance, and  thus  diminished  the  opposition  to  the  system. 
The  loss  of  the  patronage  of  the  comparatively  few  who 
will  go  to  the  trouble  of  buying  liquor  out  of  the  State 
cannot  seriously  affect  the  business  of  the  dispensaries. 

1898. 


THE   EESTEICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   IVIASSACHU- 
SETTS,  1875-1894. 

After  a  trial  of  prohibition  covering  several  years, 
Massachusetts,  in  1874,  returned  to  a  licensing  system. 

The  law  of  that  year  placed  the  licensing  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  cities  and  selectmen 
of  towns,  authorizing  the  appointment  of  license  commis- 
sions in  cities  by  the  mayor,  with  concurrence  of  the  city 
council.  Six  classes  of  licenses,  each  license  to  run  for 
a  year,  were  provided  for:  Class  1,  to  sell  liquor  of  any 
kind,  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises,  fee,  minimum,  $100, 
maximum,  $1,000;  class  2,  to  sell  malt  liquors,  cider,  and 
light  wines  containing  not  more  than  15  per  cent,  of  alco- 
hol, to  be  drunk  on  the  premises,  fee  $50  to  $250;  class 
3,  to  sell  malt  liquors  and  cider,  to  be  drunk  on  the  prem- 
ises, fee  the  same  as  class  2;  class  4,  to  sell  distilled 
liquors  of  any  kind  not  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises,  fee 
$50  to  $500,  in  no  case  less  than  $300  unless  the  dis- 
tiller's annual  output  was  no  more  than  50  barrels,  when 
the  minimum  fee  was  to  be  charged;  class  5,  to  sell  malt 
liquors,  cider,  and  light  wines  containing  not  more  than 
15  per  cent,  of  alcohol,  not  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises, 
$50  to  $150,  brewers  to  be  charged  from  $200  to  $400, 
according  to  the  value  of  business;  class  6,  license  to 
druggists  and  apothecaries  to  sell  liquors  of  any  kind  for 
medicinal,  mechanical,  and  chemical  purposes.  The  main 
conditions  of  license  were  that  no  sales  be  made  between 
midnight  and  6  A.  m.,  nor  on  Sunday,  except  by  innhold- 
ers;  that  only  good  and  unadulterated  liquors  be  vended; 


182     THE   EESTRICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

no  sales  be  made  to  a  drunkard,  or  an  intoxicated  person, 
or  a  minor;  no  disturbance,  indecency,  prostitution,  lewd- 
ness, or  illegal  gaming  be  allowed  on  the  premises  licensed 
or  connected  thereM'ith  by  interior  communication.  Li- 
censes of  the  second,  third,  and  fifth  classes  were  made 
subject  to  the  further  condition  that  only  the  classes  of 
liquor  defined  be  kept  on  the  premises  licensed,  and  those 
of  the  first,  second,  and  third  classes  to  the  condition  that 
the  licensee  should  not  keep  a  public  bar  and  should  hold 
a  license  as  an  innholder  or  common  victualler,  which 
mayor  and  aldermen  and  selectmen  were  authorized  to 
grant.  The  licensee  was  required  to  provide  a  bond  of 
$1,000.  Penalties  for  violating  the  conditions  of  a  license 
were  fixed  at  a  fine  of  from  $50  to  $500,  or  imprisonment, 
one  to  six  months,  or  both  fine  and  imprisonment;  in  addi- 
tion, the  license  to  be  forfeited,  and  the  holder  disquali- 
fied from  renewing  it  for  one  year;  for  furnishing  liquor 
to  a  minor,  a  fine  of  $100;  for  failure  to  comply  with 
the  request  of  a  wife,  child,  or  guardian  that  liquor  be  not 
sold  to  husbands  or  parents  or  ward,  a  fine  of  $100  to 
$500;  for  selling  without  a  license,  fine  $50  to  $500, 
or  imprisonment  one  to  six  months,  or  both.  Delivery  of 
liquor  except  for  a  private  house  was  declared  to  be  prima 
facie  evidence  of  sale.  The  term  "intoxicating  liquors" 
was  defined  as  including  ale,  porter,  strong  beer,  lager  beer, 
cider,  and  all  wines,  as  well  as  distilled  spirits.  The 
licensing  authorities  or  any  officer  authorized  by  them  was 
empowered  to  enter  licensed  premises  at  any  time,  to  ob- 
serve the  conduct  of  the  business,  take  samples  of  liquor 
for  analysis,  and  so  on,  and  these  authorities  might  declare 
a  license  forfeited  Avhen  conditions  were  violated.  A  state 
inspector  and  assayer  of  liquors,  to  analyze  all  samples  sent 
him  by  mayors  and  others,  was  provided  for. 

The  various  amendments  to  this  law  which  were  enacted 
from  1876  to   1880   embodied   no   radical   departure,    but 


ACTS  OF  1876-1880.  183 

wero  chiefly  designed  to  strengthen  it  and  to  provide  pen- 
alties for  any  infringement.  These  amendments,  briefly 
stated,  were  as  follows :  — 

In  1876,  a  search  warrant  act  prescribing  minutely  the 
mode  of  procedure  against  persons  suspected  of  illegal  sell- 
ing, the  warrant  to  be  issued  on  the  complaint  of  two  per- 
sons provided  the  justice  or  court  is  satisfied  of  the  truth 
of  the  complaint.  Arrests  of  persons  in  the  act  of  selling 
illegally  may  be  made  without  a  warrant.  In  case  an 
officer  neglects  to  institute  proceedings  after  being  furnished 
with  a  written  notice  of  a  violation  of  the  law,  it  is  pro- 
vided that  any  person  thereafter  making  a  complaint  shall 
be  entitled  to  all  fines  imposed  and  collected.  In  1878, 
acts  to  prevent  bringing  liquor  intended  for  sale  into  places 
where  licenses  for  the  five  classes  enumerated  are  not 
granted;  providing  for  the  recovery  of  damages  by  parent, 
wife,  or  child,  caused  by  the  use  of  liquors  sold;  requiring 
the  consent  of  the  owner  of  the  building  in  which  it  is 
proposed  to  exercise  a  license.  In  1879,  an  act  transfer- 
ring the  licensing  power  for  the  city  of  Boston  to  the 
board  of  police  commissioners.  In  1880,  acts  requiring 
the  specification  in  each  license  of  the  first  three  classes, 
innholders  excepted,  of  the  room  or  rooms  in  which  liquor 
may  be  sold;  the  removal  of  screens,  blinds,  and  other 
obstructions  to  a  view  of  licensed  premises;  that  no  sale 
be  made  to  a  minor  for  the  use  of  parent  or  any  other  per- 
son, or  to  a  person  known  to  have  been  intoxicated  within 
the  six  months  next  preceding;  that  in  case  a  judgment 
awarded  for  injuries  remains  unsatisfied  for  thirty  days 
the  license  be  revoked;  and  defining  intoxicating  liquor  to 
be  any  beverage  containing  more  than  3  per  cent,  of  alcohol 
by  volume  at  60°  Fahrenheit. 

In  1881  a  local  option  law  was  passed,  providing  for 
the  granting  of  licenses  only  in  cities  and  towns  voting  at 
the  annual  election  or  meeting  to  authorize  their  issue,  the 


184     THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

vote  to  be  taken  by  separate  ballot,  "  yes, "  or  "  no. "  Towns 
voting  "no  "  might  grant  druggists'  medicinal  licenses.  The 
same  year  the  severity  of  the  "screen  law"  was  increased, 
any  obstruction  to  a  view  from  the  street  being  declared 
a  sufficient  cause  for  nullifying  a  license. 

In  1882  acts  were  passed  reqiiiring  sureties  on  liquor 
bonds  to  make  sworn  statements  as  to  property  qualifica- 
tions; prohibiting  the  granting  of  licenses  of  the  first 
three  classes  for  sales  in  any  building  or  place  rf)n  the  same 
street  within  four  hundred  feet  of  a  public  school]  provid- 
ing that  upon  written  notification  to  the  licensing  board  of 
objection  by  an  owner  of  real  estate  adjoining  premises  for 
which  a  license  is  sought,  the  license  shall  not  issue,  or  if 
granted  may  be  revoked.  In  1884  additions  were  made 
to  the  conditions  of  licenses,  prohibiting  the  sale  or  delivery 
of  liquors  to  a  person  known  to  have  been  intoxicated 
within  six  months,  or  one  known  to  have  been  supported 
by  public  charity  at  any  time  within  twelve  months.  In 
1885  the  licensing  power  for  Boston  was  vested  in  the 
board  of  police  commissioners  appointed  by  the  governor  of 
the  Commonwealth.  Other  acts  of  this  year  were  measures 
directed  against  the  improper  canceling  of  liquor  cases  in 
court;  restricting  sales  to  the  hours  between  6  A.  m.  and 
11  p.  M.,  with  the  exception  of  sales  by  innholders,  who 
were  allowed  to  supply  duly  registered  guests ;  prohibiting 
sales  on  election  days,  with  the  same  exception ;  and  em- 
powering mayors  and  selectmen  to  issue  notices  to  dealers 
not  to  sell  or  deliver  liquor  to  a  person  of  intemperate 
habits,  making  neglect  to  comply  therewith  within  a  speci- 
fied time  cause  for  action  for  damages  for  the  benefit  of 
the  relatives  or  guardians  of  such  person. 

In  1887  and  1888  the  acts  were  many  and  varied.  In 
the  former  year  tlie  issue  of  special  club  licenses,  revokable 
at  any  time  by  the  licensing  authorities,  were  authorized, 
all  places  used  by  unlicensed  clubs  for  the  sale  or  dispensing 


ACTS  OF  1887  AND   1888.  185 

of  liquors  being  declared  common  nuisances;  the  act  of 
1882  withholding  license  from  premises  upon  the  written 
objection  of  owners  of  adjoining  real  estate  was  so  amended 
as  to  admit  objections  by  owners  of  real  estate  within 
twenty-five  feet  of  such  premises;  mayors  or  selectmen 
were  empowered  to  forbid  sales  by  licensees  of  the  first 
three  classes  in  case  of  riot  or  unusual  excitement,  but  not 
for  more  than  three  days  at  a  time,  the  penalty  for  failure 
to  obey  such  order  being  fixed  at  a  fine  of  $200  for  each 
offense  and  forfeiture  of  license ;  conviction  of  a  licensee  for 
violation  of  any  of  the  liquor  laws  was  declared  of  itself 
to  make  the  license  void;  the  seizure  of  implements  or 
sale  of  furniture  used  in  selling  liquor  illegally  was  author- 
ized; the  granting  of  a  sixth  class  license  to  retail  drug- 
gists to  sell  for  medicinal,  mechanical,  or  chemical  purposes 
alone,  upon  the  certificate  of  the  purchaser,  stating  the  use 
for  which  the  liquor  is  desired,  record,  open  to  inspection, 
to  be  kept  of  each  sale,  was  authorized ;  and  provision  was 
made  for  the  forwarding  of  confiscated  liquors  to  the  chief 
of  the  district  police,  to  be  sold  by  him  for  the  benefit  of 
the  State.  The  acts  of  1888  prohibited  sales  on  Fast,  Me- 
morial, Thanksgiving,  and  Christmas  days  (or  on  December 
26),  except  by  innholders  to  duly  registered  guests ;  added 
a  further  condition  of  license,  that  a  common  victualler 
shall  not  sell  or  give  away  liquor  on  election  days;  prohib- 
ited the  exercise  of  a  license  of  the  first  five  classes  in  a 
dwelling  or  in  any  room  having  interior  connection  with 
a  dwelling  or  tenement;  limited  the  number  of  licenses  to 
one  for  1,000  inhabitants,  except  in  Boston,  the  proportion 
there  to  be  one  to  500 ;  and  in  towns  having  an  increase 
of  resident  population  during  the  summer  months,  the 
selectmen  in  such  towns  being  empowered  to  issue  one  to 
each  500,  to  run  from  June  15  to  September  15,  provided 
the  town  votes  "yes"  on  the  license  question;  further  de- 
fined intoxicating  liquor  to  be  any  beverage  containing  one 


186     THE   KESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

per  cent,  of  alcohol  at  60°  Fahrenheit;  and  increased  the 
license  fees:  first  class,  not  less  than  $1,000,  second  and 
third  classes  $250;  fourth  class,  $300;  fifth  class,  $150; 
and  sixth  (druggists),  $1, 

In  1889  the  penalty  for  violations  of  the  liquor  laws 
was  made  fine  ($50  to  $500)  and  imprisonment  from  one 
to  six  months,  a  licensee  (except  druggist)  if  convicted 
forfeiting  his  license  and  being  disqualified  for  one  year. 
This  year,  also,  acts  were  passed  prohibiting  the  issue  of 
licenses  to  druggists  and  apothecaries  not  registered  phar- 
macists ;  empowering  the  licensing  board  to  transfer  licenses 
from  one  location  to  another  in  the  city  or  town  in  which 
the  licenses  are  in  force,  such  privileges,  however,  to  be 
granted  only  to  original  licensees;  prohibiting  licenses  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  classes,  except  wholesale  druggists, 
from  selling  on  election  days;  and  permitting  sales  during 
special  elections  in  wards  where  no  election  takes  place. 
In  1890  a  penalty  was  fixed  for  the  employment  of  any 
person  under  eighteen  years  of  age  to  serve  liquor  in  a 
place  where  it  is  sold  for  consumption  on  the  premises. 
In  1891  each  license  of  the  first,  second,  and  third  classes 
was  made  subject  to  the  further  condition  that  the  licensee 
shall  hold  a  license  as  an  innholder  or  common  victualler, 
and  shall  not  serve  liquors  at  table  in  any  room  where  the 
exclusive  business  is  liquor-selling;  and  the  issue  of  tem- 
porary licenses  (taking  effect  July  1  and  expiring  October 
1)  in  cities  and  towns  voting  "yes  "  was  authorized  on  the 
basis  of  one  to  500  inhabitants,  the  enumeration  to  be 
made  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

In  1894  further  provisions  were  made  with  respect  to 
sureties,  the  number  of  bonds  upon  which  a  person,  firm, 
or  corporation  may  be  accepted  as  surety  being  limited  to 
ten,  and  each  surety  being  required  to  make  sworn  state- 
ment that  he  is  not  surety  on  more  than  nine  other  bonds. 
This  year,  also,  an  act  was  passed  providing  for  the  estab- 


ACTS  OF  1894.  187 

lishment  of  boards  of  license  commissioners  in  cities  not 
having  a  license  commission,  or  board  of  police  created  by 
special  statute  or  under  a  charter,  or  voting  at  their  last 
election  against  license:  such  board  to  be  appointed  by 
the  mayor  with  the  concurrence  of  the  council,  and  to  ex- 
ercise the  powers  formerly  imposed  upon  the  mayor  and 
aldermen  relative  to  intoxicating  liquors  as  well  as  to  inn- 
holders  and  common  victuallers.  In  case  a  city  should 
afterward  vote  not  to  grant  licenses,  it  was  provided  that 
the  obligation  as  to  license  commissioners  should  cease,  and 
the  power  heretofore  exercised  by  mayors  and  aldermen 
revest  in  them.  Other  acts  of  1894  were  relative  to  illegal 
sales  by  incorporated  clubs,  directing  the  secretary  of  the 
Commonwealth  to  publish  such  incorporations  as  void;  and 
with  respect  to  druggists'  licenses,  prohibiting  the  issue  of 
such  license  to  any  person  not  a  registered  pharmacist  ac- 
tively engaged  in  business  on  his  own  account,  or  to  any 
registered  pharmacist  who  does  not  present  a  certificate 
from  the  State  Board  of  Registration  in  Pharmacy  indors- 
ing him  as  a  proper  person  to  be  intrusted  with  it.  In 
1895  sales  were  prohibited  on  the  Nineteenth  of  April  and 
the  Fourth  of  July. 

The  results  of  the  present  methods  of  dealing  with  the 
liquor  traffic  (license  by  statutory  limitation,  high  fees,  and 
so  on)  may  be  more  clearly  apprehended  when  brought  into 
contrast  with  those  of  earlier  methods.  Two  communities 
were  chosen  for  study:  Boston,  the  chief  city  and  centre 
of  the  liquor  trade,  and  North  Adams,  a  town  in  Berkshire 
County,  in  the  western  part  of  the  State,  the  latter  as  rep- 
resentative of  the  smaller  communities  under  license. 


188    THE   EESTEICTIVE   SYSTEM  IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 
I.   THE   LIQUOR   TRAFFIC  IN  BOSTON. 

UKDER    THE    LICENSING    COMMISSIONERS,  1875-1879. 

After  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1875,  the  authority 
to  grant  licenses  in  Boston  was  vested  in  a  board  of  three 
members  apjiointed  by  the  mayor,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  City  Council.  Since  this  board  had  no  organized 
connection  with  the  Police  Department,  upon  which  the 
final  enforcement  of  the  liquor  laws  depends,  its  functions 
were  generally  limited  to  the  distribution  of  licenses,  and 
to  hearing  complaints.  The  board  might  issue  orders,  but 
it  had  no  power  to  compel  their  execution. 

The  conditions  confronting  the  first  boards  were  peculiar 
and  perplexing.  During  the  later  years  of  prohibition 
no  serious  attempts  had  been  made  to  enforce  the  law. 
The  commissioners  had  to  deal  with  persons  accustomed 
to  non-interference,  and  hence  not  easily  brought  to  heed 
the  restrictions  even  of  a  mild  license  law.*  The  three 
principal  abuses  were  deemed  to  be  the  sale  of  impure 
liquors,  the  Sunday  traffic,  and  late  hours.  Much  fault 
was  found  with  the  penalties  prescribed  for  illicit  sales  and 
with  the  mode  of  procedure  to  secure  convictions. 

The  earliest  amendments  (the  search  warrant  act  and 
forfeiture  clause)  did  not  appreciably  improve  the  condi- 
tions. When  the  next  board  entered  upon  office.  May  8, 
1877,  the  chief  of  police  reported  that  liquor  was  sold  at 
2,341  places.      But  since  only  1,055  places  were  licensed 

1  "  Liquor  selling  in  this  city  is,  to  a  large  extent,  in  the  hands  of  irre- 
sponsible men  and  women,  whose  idea  of  a  license  law  ends  with  the  simple 
matter  of  paying  a  certain  sum;  the  amount  making  but  little  difference 
as  long  as  they  are  left  to  do  as  they  i)l('aso  after  the  payment.  Besides 
the  saloons  and  barrooms  which  are  open  publicly,  the  traflic  in  small 
grocery  stores,  in  cellars  and  in  dwellinghouses,  in  some  parts  of  the  city, 
is  almost  astounding.  The  Sunday  trade  is  enormous,  and  it  seems  as  if 
there  were  not  hours  enough  in  the  whole  round  of  twenty-four,  or  days 
enough  in  the  entire  week,  to  satisfy  the  dealers." 


UNDER   LICENSING  COMMISSIONERS.  189 

during  the  year,  "the  law  was  violated  at  1,300  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  police."  Among  the  licensed  dealers 
there  was  widespread  discontent  because  they  were  unpro- 
tected against  the  unlicensed.  "Juries  failed  to  convict 
persons  who  proved  that  they  had  been  willing  to  take  out 
licenses  and  live  under  them."  (Report  of  Commissioners.) 
The  character  and  standing  of  the  police  force  had  also 
suffered,  for  "the  opinion  was  widespread  that  without  the 
tacit  approval,  and  in  some  cases  the  absolute  protection 
of  the  officers  especially  detailed  to  enforce  it,  so  many 
persons  could  not  live  in  open  violation  of  the  law  the 
police  were  bound  to  enforce  equally  with  any  other." 

To  obviate  these  evils  more  licenses  were  issued.  In 
fact,  every  person  who  came  to  the  board  "properly  recom- 
mended "  was  granted  a  license.  In  consequence  the  num- 
ber was  increased  by  1,101,  giving  149  inhabitants  to  each 
license  in  1878  against  267  in  the  preceding  year.  The 
measure  resulted  in  compelling  most  of  the  liquor-dealers 
to  take  out  licenses,  with  large  gains  to  the  city  treasury. 

The  freer  granting  of  licenses  was  followed  by  a  "  marked 
improvement  in  the  respectability  and  good  order  of  the 
places,  and  a  stricter  conformity  to  the  law. "  While  assert- 
ing this,  the  commissioners  complained  of  one  great  obsta- 
cle —  the  unwillingness  of  the  public  to  aid  them  and  fur- 
nish evidence  of  violations.  Anonymous  complaints  were 
not  lacking,  but  "even  avowed  prohibitionists  refused  to 
sign  complaints." 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  commissioners  be- 
lieved that  the  consumption  of  distilled  spirits  Avas  decreas- 
ing. Wholesale  dealers  and  distillers  reiterated  the  asser- 
tion, and  on  this  ground  demanded  a  reduction  of  license 
fees.  If  an  actual  decrease  had  taken  place,  it  was  of 
short  duration,  for  later  they  paid  trebled  fees  without  a 
murmur. 

The  following  year,   1879,   was  the  last  under  license 


190     THE   RESTKICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

commissioners.  Their  powers  were  now,  by  legislative 
act,  vested  in  a  Board  of  Police  Commissioners  appointed 
by  the  mayor.  The  license  law  had  been  in  operation  for 
four  years,  and  some  marked  changes  had  been  wrought. 
In  December,  1874,  the  chief  of  police  reported  the  num- 
ber of  places  where  liquor  was  sold  to  be  3,090,  a  large 
proportion  of  which  had  facilities  for  drinking  on  the 
premises.  In  September,  1875,  when  the  law  had  been  in 
operation  four  months,  there  were  1,897  licensed  and  586 
unlicensed  places.  In  May,  1877,  the  police  stated  that 
of  the  2,341  places  but  1,167  were  licensed.  In  1878, 
according  to  their  figures,  the  number  had  decreased  to 
180,  and  in  1879  to  101.  This  improvement,  real  though 
it  was  in  one  sense,  had  been  accomplished  only  by  greatly 
increasing  the  number  of  licenses.  While  many  seizures 
were  made,  and  not  a  few  licensees  forfeited  their  privileges, 
the  task  of  inculcating  thorough  respect  for  the  law  among 
licensed  dealers  had  made  slight  advance.  The  grossest 
abuses,  such  as  selling  to  minors,  to  intoxicated  persons, 
on  Sundays,  and  after  hours,  continued  much  as  before. 
The  last  board  of  license  commissioners,  especially,  had 
evinced  much  zeal  in  performing  its  duties,  but  it  lacked 
the  powers  to  carry  out  a  lasting  reform. 

The  causes  leading  to  the  abolition  of  the  board  appear 
to  have  been  two:  (1)  The  desire  to  centre  the  licensing 
power  in  a  body  with  every  means  of  enforcing  the  laws 
at  its  command;  (2)  dissatisfaction  with  the  last  board, 
which  had  displayed  too  earnest  a  reform  spirit  to  suit  the 
dealers,  who  hoped  for  a  more  lenient  regime  under  men 
whose  actions  would  largely  be  determined  by  political 
considerations. 


UNDER   POLICE   COMMISSIONERS.  191 

UNDER    THE    POLICE    COMMISSIONEBS,  1880-1884. 

The  liquor  element  had  not  reckoned  amiss.  The  first 
two  years  under  the  police  commissioners  as  the  licensing 
authority  were  distinguished  by  fewer  complaints  against 
privileged  dealers,  a  decreasing  number  of  forfeitures  of 
licenses,  and  less  interference  with  the  unlawful  traffic, 
while  more  licenses  were  granted  than  in  1879. 

ISTew  legislation  had  been  devised  to  put  the  licensed 
dealers  under  further  restraint.  Nevertheless,  dealers 
found  it  profitable  to  evade  the  law  on  every  side. 

The  difficulty  of  regulating  the  traffic  in  Boston  was 
perceptibly  increased  when  the  local  option  law  went  into 
effect  in  1882.  Many  of  the  surrounding  towns,  with 
large  and  rapidly  increasing  population,  at  once  took  advan- 
tage of  the  new  measure,  and  outlawed  the  saloon.  This 
not  only  drove  many  dealers  into  Boston,  who  found  there 
a  better  opportunity  of  plying  an  illicit  traffic,  but  also 
drew  a  new  class  of  customers  to  this  city.  Licenses  were 
granted  with  as  much  liberality  this  year  as  before,  but  a 
promising  activity  in  enforcing  the  law  is  observable  in  the 
number  of  complaints  entered  against  both  licensed  and 
unlicensed  places.  This,  however,  must  mainly  be  accred- 
ited to  the  work  of  a  new  organization,  "The  Citizens' 
Law  and  Order  League,"  which  had  for  its  sole  object 
to  secure  compliance  with  the  liquor  laws.  Backed  by 
some  of  the  most  influential  men  of  Boston,  this  society 
kept  a  strict  watch  over  the  dealers.  Of  equal  importance, 
perhaps,  was  its  work  in  promoting  new  legislation  or  in 
amending  that  already  existing.  It  was  contending  against 
great  odds,  and  "had  at  first  little  sympathy  and  less  help 
from  public  officers." 

As  political  appointees,  the  police  commissioners  were 
swayed  by  political  influences.  They,  as  well  as  those  un- 
der them,  could  not  retain  office  and  ignore  party  dictation. 


192     THE   EESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

The  dealers  knew  that  their  advantage  lay  in  controlling, 
so  far  as  possible,  municipal  elections,  and  bent  every  en- 
ergy to  that  end.  Their  immediate  representatives  sought 
and  held  important  places  in  the  city  government,  where 
they  could  exert  a  direct  influence  on  the  board  of  police. 

They  formed  a  compact  and  highly  perfected  organiza- 
tion. The  small  liquor-shop  keepers  were  controlled  by 
their  bondsmen,  largely  brewers  and  wholesale  dealers,  and 
readily  did  the  bidding  of  the  latter  for  the  protection  en- 
joyed or  from  necessity.  In  fact,  the  liquor  power  was 
at  this  time  virtually  a  few  men's  power.  In  1884,  for 
instance,  twenty-five  wholesale  dealers  were  sureties  for 
1,030  saloon-keepers.  Three  brewers  were  on  328  bonds; 
one  more  was  on  112,  others  on  from  8  to  109  apiece. 
Twenty-five  men  had  thus  assumed  a  moneyed  liability  of 
$2,060,000  —  some  a  liability  in  excess  of  the  value  of 
their  property.  Even  policemen  were  accepted  as  sureties 
on  the  bonds  of  liquor-dealers. 

As  a  further  example  of  the  unremitting  labor  of  the 
liquor  element  in  municipal  politics,  in  1884  both  the 
chairman  and  73  members  of  the  city  central  committee  of 
the  dominant  party  were  liquor-dealers. 

Some  interesting  testimony  relative  to  the  power  and 
influence  of  this  element  appeared  at  the  hearings  on  the 
metropolitan  police  bill.      Two  extracts  follow :  — 

"If  we  were  to  do  our  duty  we  should  not  retain  our  places 
for  a  single  week."     (Testimony  of  policemen.) 

"  There  are  men  in  the  city  government  whose  interests  are 
aifected  one  way  or  another  by  the  enforcement  of  the  law 
(liquor),  and  these  men  naturally  have  much  influence  with 
the  police  commissioners.  ...  A  man  cannot  rise  above  the 
source  of  his  appointment,  and  if  a  man  is  under  obligations 
to  men  principally  engaged  in  the  li(inor  traffic  lie  has  got  to 
wink  at  a  great  many  things."  (Testimony  of  General  A.  P. 
Martin.) 

To  the  policemen  the  dealers  could  and  did  say,  "Let 


UNDER   POLICE   COMMISSIONERS.  193 

US  alone,  or  off  come  your  buttons."  Knowing  that  zeal 
in  the  performance  of  his  duties  would  only  cost  him  his 
place,  it  was  an  easy  step  for  the  policeman  to  extend  pro- 
tection to  unlicensed  dealers  for  a  consideration.  That  not 
a  few  gave  way  to  this  temptation  is  admitted  by  members 
of  the  force  at  the  present  time. 

One  of  the  most  serious  consequences  of  the  influence 
of  the  dealers  with  the  police  commissioners  was  the  licens- 
ing of  unfit  applicants.  Notwithstanding  the  assurances 
of  the  authorities  that  "in  all  cases  careful  inquiry  as  to 
the  fitness  of  the  applicant  for  a  license  has  been  made," 
remonstrances  against  certain  applicants,  on  the  part  of 
many  citizens  of  good  standing,  were,  as  a  rule,  unavailing. 
But  the  authorities  could  even  go  to  the  length  of  aiding 
the  dealers  in  escaping  from  the  consequences  of  uncomfort- 
able laws.  When  the  "  schoolhouse  law  "  was  passed  in 
1882,  prohibiting  the  granting  of  licenses  of  the  first  three 
classes  in  any  building  or  place  on  the  same  street  within 
400  feet  of  a  public  schoolhouse  or  any  building  occupied 
in  whole  or  in  part  by  a  public  school,  150  dealers  were 
affected  by  it.  Many  evaded  the  law  by  changing  the 
entrances  to  their  saloons  to  other  streets  than  that  on 
which  a  schoolhouse  fronted.  The  majority  invoked  polit- 
ical aid.  The  Law  and  Order  League  made  the  never 
refuted  charge  that  two  schoolhouses  (one  on  Harrison 
Avenue  and  one  on  Washington  Street)  were  vacated  in 
order  to  "save  "  about  a  score  of  saloons. 

The  liquor  element  was,  however,  far  from  satisfied  with 
the  influence  it  possessed  locally.  In  the  first  place,  the 
largest  freedom  could  not  be  enjoyed  even  under  a  pliant 
police  board.  Secondly,  municipal  influence  could  not 
guard  it  from  the  enactment  of  more  stringent  laws.  Thus 
it  became  necessary  to  work  in  state  as  well  as  local  poli- 
tics, and  by  choosing  its  own  representatives  to  oppose  all 
unfavorable  legislation. 


194      THE   EESTRICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

During  1883  and  1884  there  was  again  an  increase  in 
the  number  of  licenses  issued.  More  privileged  saloons 
existed  in  1884  than  either  before  or  since.  The  fact 
that  some  license  fees  had  been  doubled  (innholders  from 
$300  in  1883  to  $600  in  1884),  and  others  raised  propor- 
tionately, did  not  deter  the  applicants,  who  were  as  numer- 
ous as  ever.-^  Yet  the  licensed  dealers  by  no  means  rep- 
resented the  full  extent  of  the  trade.  The  collector  of 
internal  revenue,  when  asked  in  1883  the  number  of 
places  in  Boston  which  had  paid  a  special  liquor  tax,  re- 
plied, "We  have  at  least  50  per  cent,  more  than  the  city 
authorities."  In  1884,  4,000  United  States  liquor  taxes 
were  paid  for  in  Boston,  or  1,400  more  than  the  licenses 
granted.  In  view  of  this  indisputable  evidence,  the  cir- 
cumstance that  only  two  complaints  were  entered  against 
unlicensed  places  in  1883  indicated  a  very  lax  enforcement. 
An  improvement  in  this  respect  followed  in  1884;  but  in 
both  years  the  number  of  arrests  for  selling  without  a 
license,  and  of  seizures  made,  showed  a  falling  off  as  com- 
pared with  1882.  The  significance  of  this  becomes  the 
more  striking  when  it  is  remembered  that  of  the  multitude 
engaged  in  the  liquor  traffic  not  all  could  hope  to  make 
more  than  a  precarious  livelihood  without  artificially  stimu- 
lating the  trade.  As  an  instance  of  this  overcrowding,  is 
the  fact  that  in  1883  the  small  space  bounded  by  Lincoln, 

1  The  following  may  throw  some  light  on  the  state  of  the  licensed  trade 
in  1884.  One  condition  of  the  license  of  the  first  three  classes  was  that 
the  licensee  should  not  keep  a  public  bar  and  should  hold  a  license  as  an 
iniiholder  or  common  victualer.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law  it  was 
held  that  every  common  victualer  having  a  license  to  sell  intoxicating 
liquor  for  consumption  on  the  pi'emises  niiglit  keep  open  shop  from  5  A.  M. 
until  12  M.  Yet  the  sale  of  liquor  was  forbidden  after  11  p.  m.  and  be- 
fore 6  A.  M.  unless  he  held  an  innholder's  license,  but  no  power  could 
compel  him  to  close  the  shop.  In  consequence  there  were  about  250  gen- 
uine victualing  establishments,  including  hotels,  which  kept  open  on 
Sunday  and  after  11  i>.  m.,  and  with  stjuie  reason,  but  no  less  than  1,358 
others  whicli  di<l  so  in  violation  of  law. 


UNDER   POLICE    COMMISSIONERS.  195 

Beach,  Federal,  and  Kneeland  streets  —  350  by  600  feet  — 
contained  no  less  than  fifty  saloons. 

So  far  the  liquor  interests  had  not  suffered  any  serious 
setback.  Licenses  were  granted  without  stint,  and  dealers 
without  them  had  nothing  to  fear  beyond  occasional  and 
passing  interference.  The  conditions  of  licenses  were  com- 
monly violated  by  sales  on  Sundays,  to  minors,  and  so  on. 
Although  the  screen  law  had  really  done  some  good  by 
preventing  the  gathering  of  minors  and  girls  in  licensed 
places,  it  was  not  fully  complied  with.  The  fate  of  the 
schoolhouse  act  has  been  noted.  The  act  giving  owners 
of  adjoining  real  estate  the  right  to  object  to  the  issue  of 
licenses  had  not  proved  generally  effective.  Although  the 
Law  and  Order  League  distributed  notices  among  dealers 
calling  attention  to  this  law  in  1883,  Avhile  over  2,600 
licenses  were  granted,  only  about  25  owners  filed  objec- 
tions. Moreover,  objections  Avere  not  infrequently  made 
for  the  purpose  of  extorting  blackmail,  or  the  law  was 
evaded  on  flimsy  pretexts.  Thus  partition  Avails  were 
erected,  the  licensee  contending  that  the  property  in  ques- 
tion Avas  no  longer  adjoining. 

The  causes  of  this  state  of  affairs  are  perfectly  explicable. 
Some  have  already  been  intimated,  but  may  again  be  sum- 
marized. The  licensing  poAver,  as  well  as  the  authority 
to  enforce  the  laAV,  rested  with  men  moved  by  the  strong 
political  influence  of  the  liquor  element.  The  hands  of 
the  police  commissioners  Avere  in  a  measure  tied  by  the  gov- 
erning poAvers  at  City  Hall,  directed  in  part  by  the  least 
scrupulous  of  dealers.  The  police  either  dared  not  imperil 
their  positions  by  an  honest  discharge  of  their  duties  or 
surrendered  to  the  temptations  ahvays  associated  with  the 
unlicensed  trafiic.  Against  the  fcAV  Avho  labored  to  subject 
the  liquor  trade  to  the  restraint  imposed  by  law  was  pitted 
the  phalanx  of  dealers  Avielding  Avith  concerted  action  the 
poAver  of  a  political  machine.     Successful,  hoAvever,  as  they 


196    THE  RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

were  in  practically  nullifying  certain  paragraphs  of  the  law, 
their  combinations  to  repeal  specific  legislation,  such  as  the 
annual  vote  on  the  question  of  licenses,  the  schoolhouse, 
screen,  and  abutters'  objection  laws,  proved  abortive.  Yet 
they  were  ever  a  power  in  the  General  Court,  with  which 
both  the  leading  parties  sought  to  curry  favor  to  the  detri- 
ment of  legislation. 

To  complete  the  sketch  of  the  conditions  of  the  liquor 
traffic  at  the  end  of  1884,  some  extracts  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr,  Tilly  Haynes,  of  the  United  States  Hotel, 
given  before  the  committee  on  a  metropolitan  police  com- 
mission at  the  State  House,  are  adduced  below.  (Mr.  Haynes 
was  himself  a  licensed  innholder.) 

"  The  great  trouble  in  my  neighborhood  is  the  insecurity  of 
life  and  property  caused  by  the  gangs  of  hoodlums  who  throng 
about  every  corner,  the  disreputable  tenement  houses  which 
are  open  and  notorious  resorts  of  thieves,  and  the  opportunities 
for  the  committal  of  crime  by  the  liquor-dealers,  who  violate 
the  law  in  every  conceivable  way.  On  any  evening  from  dark 
until  late  at  night  you  will  see  these  roughs  on  nearly  ev^ery 
corner.  .  .  .  They  watch  for  men,  generally  from  the  country, 
who  may  be  going  to  the  depots  under  the  influence  of  liquor. 
These  they  speak  to,  and  if  possible  induce  to  go  into  one  of 
the  many  barrooms  to  take  just  one  more  drink.  These  bar- 
rooms are  fitted  up  with  what  is  called  an  ofiice,  in  which  is  a 
table  and  a  few  chairs.  They  are  perfectly  closed  with  high 
partitions,  curtains,  and  ground-glass  doors,  and  it  is  into  these 
the  victim  is  taken.  The  drinks  are  brought  in,  and  that  is 
the  last  the  stranger  knows  about  it.  When  he  comes  to  his 
senses  he  finds  that  he  has  been  robbed  and  perhaps  beaten." 

"  Do  they  drug  the  liquor  ?  " 

"  I  don't  know  whether  they  do  or  not ;  the  liquor  is  bad 
enough  anyway.  .  .  .  Some  parts  of  my  own  hotel  are  rendered 
practically  untenable  by  the  noise  and  disorder  caused  by 
drunken  rowdies,  and  often  men  are  brought  into  my  house 
wounded  by  those  who  entrapped  them  into  low  dives." 

"Did  you  ever  make  complaints?" 

"Yes,  frequently.  But  when  complaints  are  made  to  the 
commissioners,  they  send  you  to  the  superintendent,  he  sends 


UNDER   THE   METROPOLITAN   BOARD.  197 

you  to  the  captain,  somebody  else  sends  you  to  the  Board 
of  Health,  and  all  this  amounts  to  nothing ;  it  is  without  re- 
sult. The  rows  and  disturbances  are  going  on  all  the  time  just 
the  same." 


UNDER    THE    METROPOLITAN    BOARD,  1885-1893. 

The  year  1885  marks  the  turning-point  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  liquor  laws  and  general  control  of  the  traffic 
in  Boston.  The  metropolitan  police  bill  was  passed  in 
the  face  of  a  strenuous  opposition,  although  its  far-reaching 
consequences  were  hardly  foreseen  at  the  time.  By  this 
act  the  licensing  authority  was  placed  beyond  the  blight- 
ing touch  of  municipal  politics,  and  those  charged  with  the 
immediate  execution  of  the  laws  could  no  longer  be  intimi- 
dated by  threats  on  the  part  of  dealers  with  a  "pull." 

It  must  not,  however,  be  understood  that  an  all-pervad- 
ing improvement  in  the  control  of  the  trade  followed  close 
upon  this  change  of  administration.  Far  from  it.  But 
a  definite  improvement  along  some  lines  may  be  traced. 
Certain  portions  of  the  city  were  still  chiefly  distinguished 
for  the  number  of  saloons  they  contained.  Merrimac 
Street,  for  instance,  remained  "Rum  Eow,"  and  the  de- 
scription of  conditions  in  other  sections  was  still  applica- 
ble. Yet  a  distinct  discrimination,  unknow^n  for  years,  in 
the  granting  of  licenses,  was  noticeable  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  new  order  of  things.  During  the  first  year  in 
which  licenses  were  issued  exclusively  by  the  commission- 
ers appointed  by  the  governor  (1886-87),  their  number 
was  reduced  by  about  300;  and  the  proportion  of  inhab- 
itants to  each  license  rose  correspondingly.  The  next  two 
years  show  a  further,  though  slight,  decline  of  the  licensed 
places,  due  in  part,  perhaps,  to  the  increased  fees. 

Although  the  new  board  first  assumed  office  in  July  of 
1885,  more  than  twice  as  many  complaints  for  violation  of 
conditions  of  licenses  were  lodged  with  the  commissioners 


198      THE   KESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

as  in  any  single  year  since  1879,  and  more  licenses  were 
declared  forfeited.  The  earnest  work  of  the  new  hoard  is 
even  more  emphasized  by  the  statistics  for  1886.  Over 
100  licenses  were  that  year  declared  forfeited.  The  prin- 
cipal offenses  of  dealers  at  this  time  were  the  opening  of 
illegal  doors,  the  sale  of  liquor  on  Sundays  and  to  minors, 
and  carrying  on  a  business  not  allowed  by  the  license, 
usually  that  of  selling  distilled  liquor  under  a  malt  liquor 
license.  These  were  the  most  obvious  abuses,  and  easiest 
of  complete  proof.  A  new  class  of  licenses  was  created, 
giving  the  right  to  sell  malt  liquors,  cider,  and  light  wines 
for  a  fee  of  $125,  it  having  been  urged  that  it  was  in  the 
interest  of  temperance  to  encourage  the  use  of  malt  liquors, 
and  thereby  decrease  the  consumption  of  distilled  spirits. 
(Report  of  Board  of  Police.)  Sixty-two  such  licenses 
were  granted.  There  is  no  evidence  of  this  measure  hav- 
ing promoted  temperance.  A  crusade  of  unwonted  vigor 
against  unlicensed  dealers  was  also  instituted,  the  arrests 
for  selling  without  a  license  and  the  number  of  seizures 
more  than  doubling  in  the  course  of  the  year.  The  strong 
movement  in  favor  of  an  impartial  enforcement  of  the  laws 
naturally  brought  out  the  full  opposition  of  the  dealers, 
who  in  1886  again  combined  for  renewed  work  in  politics 
—  to  control  nominations  and  secure  elections.  The  new 
association  made  the  following  declaration,  as  reported  in 
the  public  press :  — 

"  We  offer  to  protect  the  dealers  in  towns  and  cities  where 
no  license  rules,  as  well  as  those  in  licensed  places,  by  furnish- 
ing them  the  best  counsel  in  the  State  and  paying  all  lawyers' 
fees." 

Notwithstanding  their  opposition,  further  restrictive  leg- 
islation was  formulated,  including  the  amendments  of  the 
act  of  1882,  permitting  owners  of  adjoining  property  to 
object  to  the  licensing  of  premises,  so  as  to  allow  objections 
of  owners  of  real  estate  within  25  feet.      Formerly  a  house 


UNDER   THE   METROPOLITAN   BOARD.  199 

owner  living  opposite  the  proposed  place  of  a  saloon  could 
not  remonstrate  against  the  licensing  of  the  premises.^ 
During  this  year  (1887)  both  complaints  against  dealers 
and  the  forfeitures  of  licenses  were  numerous.  Prosecu- 
tions for  selling  without  a  license,  as  well  as  seizure,  were 
of  almost  daily  occurrence. 

With  the  passage  of  the  limitation  act  in  1888,  restrict- 
ing the  number  of  licensed  places  to  one  per  500  inhab- 
itants in  Boston  and  one  per  1,000  in  other  places,  a  new 
epoch  in  the  history  of  Massachusetts  liquor  legislation 
began ;  and  the  increase  of  the  minimum  fee  for  a  first-class 
license  to  $1,000,  prohibiting  the  exercise  of  licenses  of 
the  first  five  classes  in  dwellinghouses,  aimed  to  diminish 
Sunday  sales,  which  could  easily  be  effected  so  long  as 
licensed  premises  had  interior  communication  with  a  dwell- 
ing or  tenement.  The  definition  of  intoxicating  liquor  as 
any  beverage  containing  more  than  one  per  cent,  of  alco- 
hol stopped  the  sale  of  the  three  per  cent,  beer  ("Berlin 
beer ")  by  unlicensed  venders,  which  had  caused  much 
drunkenness. 

No  less  than  1,042  places  licensed  in  1888  were  forced 
to  close  in  1889.  The  proportion  of  licensed  places  was 
one  to  567  inhabitants  (estimated  population)  as  against 
one  to  240  in  1888.  The  new  measures  had  a  double 
effect:  they  enabled  the  commissioners  (1)  to  weed  out  the 
more  objectionable  licensees,  (2)  they  made  the  remaining 
dealers,  fearful  of  losing  their  costly  privilege,  observe  the 
conditions  of  licenses  with  more  care. 

The  changes  wrought  in  one  part  of  Boston  by  the  limi- 
tation law  with  respect  to  the  number  of  are  licenses  clearly 

1  It  is  a  question  whether  the  law  as  amended  has  met  the  expectations 
of  its  framers.  While  every  opportunity  is  given  owners  to  file  objections, 
too  many  are  moved  by  pecuniary  considerations.  The  willingness  of 
dealers  to  pay  liberal  "damages"  to  secure  an  eligible  site  is  well  known. 
For  this  reason  few  objections  are  made,  or  if  made  are  frequently  with- 
drawn. 


200      THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

shown  in  the  diagram  opposite.  Yet  the  changes  were  not 
so  marked  until  1890.  The  complaints  against  dealers  for 
violating  the  conditions  of  their  licenses  had,  to  be  sure, 
decreased  much  in  1889,  but  they  still  maintained  a  high 
figure.  Many  licenses  were  also  forfeited  for  the  same  old 
offenses,  —  selling  on  Sundays,  in  violation  of  license,  and 
so  on.  "Pool  for  drinks"  was  still  advertised.  Much 
difficulty  was  experienced  in  making  certain  innholders  con- 
form to  the  requirement  not  to  sell  liquor  after  hours  to 
any  but  bona  fide  guests.  While,  formerly,  few  complaints 
and  a  small  number  of  forfeitures  were  a  safe  indication  of 
lax  work  by  the  licensing  board  and  police  officers,  the 
reverse  is  true  after  1890,  for  reasons  already  given. 

The  extent  to  which  the  illicit  traffic  received  an  im- 
petus when  so  many  persons  were  forced  to  retire  from  the 
legalized  trade  cannot  be  estimated.  The  arrests  for  sell- 
ing liquor  without  a  license  reached  the  highest  figure  thus 
far  known  in  1889.  However,  this  may  have  been  because 
the  laws  were  more  vigorously  enforced. 

Since  the  return  to  the  license  system  in  1875,  a  provi- 
sion had  remained  on  the  statute  book  forbidding  licensees 
(innholders  and  common  victualers)  to  keep  a  public  bar. 
In  1890  the  board  of  police,  at  the  instance  of  some 
friends  of  temperance,  reinforced  by  the  Law  and  Order 
League,  demanded  full  compliance  with  this  provision. 
Accordingly  the  bars  were  partitioned  off,  but  not  removed, 
and  drinks  were  now  served  at  tables  instead  of  at  coun- 
ters. The  legality  of  this  new  practice  was  as  doubtful  as 
that  of  the  former,  since  the  clause  forbidding  the  keep- 
ing of  a  public  bar,  in  its  original  sense,  clearly  did  not 
permit  the  sale  of  liquor  except  with  meals.  The  change 
did  no  perceptible  good.  From  October  1,  1889,  to  Maj'- 
31,  1890,  eight  months,  16,234  arrests  were  made  for 
drunkenness,  and  from  June  1  to  September  30,  1890, 
the  four  months  following  the  revival  of  the  law  against 


z 
o 

0) 

o 

CD 


cove   ST. 


HUDSON    Q 

'z 

TYLER  ST.  4 

i\ 

HARRISON  Ul 

z 


■    ■    J  uiLm 


AVE 


"«nr 


Washington 

■  ■ 


JX. 


ST. 


I- 
< 


COVE  ST. 


SOUTH       ST. 


3 


UTICA  ST 


ALBANY  ST. 


nr 


HUDSON 


ST. 


I- 


o 

Tyler  St  j 

< 


Harrison  iu  ave. 
u 

z 


Washington      St. 


1 


MM 


TREMONT  ST. 


"o 

(3 

c 


c 
o 


202      THE   RESTRICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

public  bars,  there  were  8,279  arrests.  This  Avas,  if  any- 
thing, an  unfavorable  showing,  for  the  arrests  are  usually 
more  numerous  during  the  winter  months  than  in  summer. 
The  dealers,  as  a  matter  of  course,  were  up  in  arms  against 
the  enforcement  of  a  law  which  had  so  long  remained  a 
dead  letter.  A  sum  of  money  was  raised  to  secure  its 
repeal.  In  1891  the  so-called  Donovan  bill,  making  it  a 
condition  of  license  that  innholders  and  victualers  shall  not 
serve  liquor  at  tables  in  any  room  where  the  exclusive  busi- 
ness is  liquor-selling,  was  passed. 

Two  of  the  measures  of  1894  were  of  more  than  ordi- 
nary interest :  that  relative  to  the  sureties  on  liquor  bonds, 
and  that  requiring  the  appointment  by  mayors  of  license 
commissioners  for  cities  voting  license,  with  the  exception 
of  those  otherwise  provided  for  in  their  charters  or  by 
special  statutes.  Properly  enforced,  the  former  will  in 
some  degree  curtail  the  power  of  brewers  and  wholesale 
dealers  over  the  smaller  retailers.  The  latter,  as  may  be 
surmised,  cannot  affect  a  divorce  of  the  licensing  question 
from  local  politics.  On  the  contrary,  the  efforts  of  the 
liquor  element  now  centre  about  the  election  of  a  mayor  of 
their  choice,  in  the  cities  affected,  who  will  either  appoint 
a  board  of  commissioners  to  their  liking  or  remove  the 
one  already  existing  if  it  is  objectionable  to  them.  The 
possible  usefulness  of  license  commissioners  is  seriously 
impaired  by  the  circumstance  that  they  do  not  exercise  any 
direct  control  over  the  police.  The  execution  of  their 
orders  and  the  general  enforcement  of  the  liquor  laws  de- 
pend on  the  good-will  of  other  officials. 

The  total  amount  received  in  fees  in  Boston  at  different 
periods  is  given  in  the  following  table :  — 


THE   TRAFFIC   IN   BOSTON   IN    1894. 


203 


Years. 

License  Fees. 

Expenses  of  Enforcing 
Liquor  Laws. 

1876 

$173,323 

$29,387.91 

1877 

274,865 

25,-595.73 

1878 

223,388 

25,107.39 

1879 

272,474 

25,047.66 

1880 

242,474 

« 

1881 

258,865 

31,361.79 

1882 

260,838 

Not  known. 

1883 

279,813 

(( 

1884 

305,551 

« 

1885 

543,390 

(( 

1886 

608,113 

(( 

1887 

588,480 

« 

1888 

618,018 

« 

1889 

888,308 

« 

1890 

1,012,600 

« 

1891 

1,033,872 

« 

1892 

1,058,146 

« 

1893 

1,064,033 

« 

1894 

1,084,194 

« 

The  revenue  from  this  source  is  about  equal  to  the  cost 
of  the  maintenance  of  the  Police  Department.  In  the  mat- 
ter of  increasing  the  fees,  the  question  of  revenue  has 
doubtless  been  a  ruling  motive;  it  also  affects  the  annual 


vote  on  licensing. 


THE    LIQUOR    TRAFFIC    IN    BOSTON    IN  1894. 

Open  and  flagrant  violations  of  the  liquor  laws  by- 
licensed  dealers  are  no  longer  of  frequent  occurrence. 
This  is  the  testimony,  not  only  of  the  police,  but  of  pri- 
vate organizations  directly  interested  in  the  question.  The 
licensees  realize,  better  than  before,  the  nature  of  their  priv- 
ileges, and  know  that  failure  to  observe  the  conditions  im- 
posed is  likely  to  result  disastrously.      Sunday   sales   by 


204      THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

saloons  are  practically  unknown.  Innholders  may  be 
found,  however,  who  resort  to  peculiar  methods  of  register- 
ing guests  in  order  to  sell  liquor  after  hours,  under  a  guise 
of  legality.  Those  who  are  bolder  are  pretty  sure  of  pun- 
ishment when  found  out.  Few  liquor-shops  would  now 
dare  to  sell  to  minors  where  their  minority  is  obvious. 
Sales  to  intoxicated  persons  occur  commonly  as  a  matter 
of  course;  and  any  one  can  obtain,  without  the  slightest 
difficulty,  enough  drink  to  produce  intoxication.  On  the 
other  hand,  numerous  dealers  persistently  refuse  persons 
visibly  under  the  influence  of  liquor.  The  closing  hours 
are  promptly  observed.  Especially  of  the  common  saloons 
it  must  be  said  that  the  screen  law  is  fully  complied  with. 
As  a  rule,  whatever  takes  place  in  a  saloon  may  be  viewed 
from  the  sidewalk.  The  condition  of  licenses  with  respect 
to  the  kind  of  liquor  sold  is  said  to  be  fully  met.  But 
the  sale  of  poor  and  adulterated  intoxicants  goes  on,  and 
little  is  done  to  prevent  it.  For  years  no  report  of  analyses 
of  liquor  has  been  made  public. 

The  other  restrictive  features  of  the  law  have  little  direct 
bearing  on  the  manner  in  which  the  traffic  is  conducted. 

On  the  -whole,  it  can  be  said  that  the  efficient  division 
of  the  police  ("liquor  squad")  charged  with  the  immediate 
supervision  of  the  licensed  shops  experience  but  little 
difficulty  with  them.  Were  the  officers  lax  in  performing 
their  duties,  a  flood  of  complaints  would  surely  pour  in, 
and  the  unlicensed  dealer  become  defiant.  Neither  has 
happened.  Comparatively  few  of  the  illegal  venders  dare 
longer  to  protect  themselves  to  the  extent  of  paying  the 
United  States  special  tax  on  liquor-dealers.  So  late  as  in 
1883  and  1884,  the  number  of  those  paying  this  tax  ex- 
ceeded the  number  of  licenses  issued  by  the  municipality 
by  from  one  third  to  one  half.  In  1894  1,404  persons  in 
Boston  paid  a  special  tax  as  retailers  of  spirituous  or  malt 
liquors.       Assuming    that    all   the    innholders,    victualers, 


THE   TRAFFIC   IN   BOSTON   IN    1894.  205 

•wholesale  dealers,  grocers,  retail  druggists,  and  the  steAvards 
of  the  48  clubs  sell  liquor  in  less  quantity  than  five  gal- 
lons, only  1,172  of  the  special  taxes  have  been  accounted 
for,  leaving  an  excess  of  232,  which  must  represent  so 
many  illegal  dealers.  The  liquor-dealers  of  Boston  must 
still  be  counted  as  factors  in  politics;  but  in  matters  apper- 
taining to  the  supervision  of  their  business  and  the  grant- 
ing of  licenses,  their  influence  is  practically  insignificant. 
In  other  words,  they  can  no  longer,  as  before,  make  them- 
selves felt  in  local  politics  to  the  detriment  of  the  commu- 
nity. Such  has  been  the  effect  of  the  high  license  and 
limitation  laws,  and,  above  all,  of  the  metropolitan  police 
act.  This  is  conceded  by  some  of  the  lifelong  opponents 
of  these  measures.  But  in  state  politics  the  dealers  can 
and  still  do  work  to  their  great  advantage,  chiefly  in  the 
line  of  thwarting  the  enactment  of  new  liquor  laws. 

Since  nearly  all  dealers  apply  for  a  renewal  of  their  priv- 
ilege each  year,  the  work  of  the  police  commissioners  is 
light.  The  changes  made  in  the  course  of  a  year  have 
rarely  numbered  more  than  twenty-seven.  If  a  licensee 
has  complied  with  the  conditions  imposed,  he  may  be 
pretty  sure  of  permission  to  continue  business  at  the  old 
stand.  At  the  same  time  it  is  officially  stated  that  it  has 
been  the  endeavor  of  the  officials  to  centre  as  many  of  the 
liquor  licenses  as  possible  in  the  "business  district  of  the 
city."  It  is  well  known  that  some  of  the  purely  residen- 
tial wards  object  to  the  presence  of  saloons,  and  bring 
much  pressure  to  bear  on  the  licensing  board  to  secure 
their  wishes.  But  since  the  licenses  are  granted  in  propor- 
tion to  the  population,  those  driven  out  of  one  locality 
must  find  an  abiding-place  in  some  other.  In  consequence, 
the  wards  containing  a  population  either  lacking  influence 
to  oppose  the  opening  of  more  liquor-shops  -witliin  their 
limits,  or  displaying  indifference,  or  even  welcoming  the 
accession  of  new  "social  centres,"  are  sure  to  get  them. 


206      THE   KESTRICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

In  other  words,  the  majority  of  liquor-shops  (hotels,  whole- 
sale houses,  aud  some  restaurants  excepted)  are  found 
precisely  where  they  can  do  most  harm.  Saloons  outlawed 
in  Dorchester  (this  ward  had  fifty  some  years  ago,  now 
four)  will  reappear  in  the  poor  quarters  —  in  South  Boston, 
perhaps,  or  at  the  North  End. 

That  some  of  the  wards  mustering  the  greatest  number 
of  saloons  are  parts  of  the  centre  of  trade  in  Boston,  is 
quite  true.  But  the  ordinary  saloon  is  not  found  on 
prominent  business  streets  unless  there  be  a  large  tenement 
population  in  the  rear,  or  the  situation  is  especially 
adapted  to  tempt  the  coming  and  going  workmen.  If  we 
take  Ward  Six  as  an  example,  we  find  most  of  the  saloons 
on  Xorth  Street,  in  the  heart  of  a  tenement  district  of  the 
worst  character;  no  less  than  twenty  along  the  lower  part 
of  Hanover  Street,  with  thickly  inhabited  courts  and  alleys 
in  the  rear,  on  both  sides  of  the  thoroughfare.  Again, 
on  Atlantic  Avenue,  in  the  same  ward,  we  find  the  saloons 
huddled  together  where  the  greatest  number  of  sailors  con- 
gregate, and  directly  in  front  of  the  prominent  steamboat 
landings.  In  Wards  Seven  and  Twelve,  the  saloons  seek 
position  as  near  the  railway  stations  as  possible.  A  multi- 
tude of  instances  may  be  given.  W^ard  Nineteen,  which 
ranks  sixth  in  point  of  saloons  (South  End),  and  Ward 
Thirteen,  which  ranks  eighth,  cannot  be  said  to  belong  to 
the  business  district  proper;  both  are  conspicuous  for  bad 
sanitary  conditions  and  a  shiftless  class  of  inhabitants. 

ARRESTS    AND    PROSECUTIONS. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  great  extent  of  the  illegal 
traffic  during  tlie  first  ten  years  of  license.  At  times,  as 
has  been  seen,  tlie  number  of  unlicensed  places  almost 
equaled  the  licensed  ones.  The  police  were  not  alone  to 
blame  for  the  demoralized  state  of  the  traffic.  It  is  true, 
they  were  often  corrupted,  or  at  least  cajoled,  by  dealers 


ARRESTS   AND   PROSECUTIONS.  207 

with  political  influence,  who,  if  licensed,  not  infrequently 
sought  shelter  with  the  licensing  authorities  or,  if  unli- 
censed, relied  upon  the  aid  of  their  privileged  brethren. 
But  the  officers  were,  first,  embarrassed  by  the  common 
difficulty  of  obtaining  sufficient  evidence  to  secure  convic- 
tions, and,  secondly,  experience  had  taught  them  that 
oftentimes  the  strongest  evidence  would  not  even  secure 
the  trial  in  court  of  a  liquor  case. 

After  1885  the  illicit  traffic  still  flourished,  but  now  the 
officials  could  attack  it  without  personal  risk.  The  num- 
ber of  arrests  increased  materially.  The  limitation  and 
high  license  laws  seem  at  once  to  have  stimulated  the  un- 
lawful trade  and  placed  it  on  a  difl^erent  footing.  Some 
of  the  many  persons  who  had  lost  their  privileges  would 
naturally  resort  to  illegal  means,  but  the  smaller  number 
and  improved  character  of  the  saloons  made  both  control 
and  supervision  easier.  Besides,  the  licensed  dealers  man- 
ifested jealousy  of  any  encroachment  upon  their  privilege 
by  persons  who  had  little  to  lose,  and  paid  less.  Since 
1889  the  unlicensed  traffic  has  been  driven  more  and  more 
into  secret  places.  Formerly  —  as  late  as  ten  years  ago  — 
the  police  could  report  with  some  degree  of  accuracy  the 
number  of  places  where  liquor  was  sold  contrary  to  law; 
now  such  an  estimate  would  be  impossible.  So  soon  as 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  a  "kitchen  bar"  reaches  the 
police,  or  so  soon  as  evidence  has  been  secured,  a  descent 
upon  the  place  is  made. 

The  kitchen-bar  trade  is  now  almost  wholly  confined  to 
Saturday  evenings  and  Sundays.  As  a  rule,  the  stock  on 
hand  is  small  and  intended  only  for  immediate  consump- 
tion. Large  seizures  are  occasionally  made.  The  liquor 
sold  is  of  the  poorest  quality,  but  brings  the  average  prices, 
which  again  means  great  profits  ofl'setting  the  many  risks 
involved.  The  kitchen  bars  are  not  confined  to  any  par- 
ticular locality.      They  abound  chiefly  in  the  poorer  sec- 


208    THE   RESTRICTIVE    SYSTEM    IN    MASSACHUSETTS. 

tions  of  the  city,  but  may  be  found  almost  everywhere. 
The  large  number  of  persons  coming  in  from  the  surround- 
ing no-license  towns  on  Saturday  evenings  and  Sundays 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  obtaining  drink,  are,  according 
to  the  police,  the  best  customers  of  these  bars.  The 
keepers  rarely  admit  customers  unknown  to  them.  Some 
move  about  from  place  to  place.  It  frequently  happens 
that  the  premises  suspected  of  harboring  a  kitchen  bar  are 
vacated  before  a  seizure  can  be  made. 

Notwithstanding  the  many  obstacles  encountered,  the 
officers  of  the  "liquor  squad"  express  confidence  in  their 
ability  to  stamp  out  the  illicit  trade  in  the  course  of  time, 
or  at  least  confine  it  within  very  narrow  limits.  It  is  of 
interest  to  note  that  the  police  now  cooperate  with  such 
an  organization  as  the  Law  and  Order  League  in  the  war- 
fare against  unlicensed  traders. 

Complaints  are  frequently  made  that  druggists  sell  liquor 
in  violation  of  their  licenses.  Some  carry  a  considerable 
stock  of  beer.  Detection  of  their  illegal  doings  is  diffi- 
cult, both  because  apothecary  shops  are  not  under  the 
same  surveillance  as  other  licensed  places,  and  because  the 
proprietors  are  careful  about  supplying  none  but  customers 
known  to  them  with  drink. 

Statistics  of  the  arrests  for  violations  of  the  liquor  laws, 
classified  according  to  sex,  nativity,  and  residence,  be- 
tween the  years  1880-1894,  exhibit  two  remarkable  facts. 
First,  that  a  large  and  increasing  percentage  of  the  unli- 
censed venders  are  women.  In  1885  women  constituted 
17. 57  per  cent  of  the  total  number  arrested  (239) ;  in 
1889,  43.56  per  cent,  (total  arrests  808);  in  1891,  49.01 
per  cent,  (total  612)  ;  in  1893,  45.76  per  cent,  (total  638); 
and  in  1894,  46.60  per  cent,  (total  648).  Not  a  few  of 
these  were  keepers  of  disreputable  houses.  Secondly,  that 
more  than  one  half  of  the  persons  arrested  are  classed  as 
foreigners.      Of  late  their  number  appears  to  diminish.      It 


ARRESTS   AND   PROSECUTIONS.  209 

is  also  noteworthy  that  more  minors  and  non-residents  are 
prosecuted  for  liquor  offenses  than  formerly. 

The  mere  arrest  for  a  violation  of  the  liquor  laws  carries 
of  itself  no  terror,  and  may  be  but  the  beginning  of  a  long 
legal  process  in  which  the  defendant  has  an  excellent 
chance  of  escaping  without  harm.  Commonly,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  two  full  trials  of  every  liquor  case.  The 
defendant  is  arraigned  in  the  lower  court,  and  the  case 
fully  heard,  so  far  as  the  government  side  is  concerned. 
If  convicted,  the  defendant  is  allowed  to  appeal;  for  there 
is  no  jury  in  this  court,  and  he  is  entitled  to  a  trial  by 
jury.  It  may  be  inconvenient  for  the  appellant  to  pay 
the  fine  imposed  in  the  lower  court;  he  may  put  his  trust 
in  a  sympathetic  jury ;  or  when,  after  many  months,  the 
trial  finally  comes  on,  important  evidence  may  have  van- 
ished, or  the  principal  witnesses  may  no  longer  be  at  hand. 

Previous  to  1885,  and  to  some  extent  later,  the  main 
reliance  of  the  accused  dealer  was  on  his  own  political 
"pull,"  or  the  "pull"  of  his  friends.  The  prosecuting 
officers  of  the  county,  being  elected  by  the  people,  and 
hence  susceptible  to  local  political  influence,  were  in  the 
habit  of  disposing  of  liquor  cases  without  trial. 

The  following  statement  of  the  disposition  of  cases  of 
violation  in  the  Superior  Court  of  Suff"olk  County,  1881- 
1884,  reveals  plainly  the  strong  hopes  of  a  final  dismissal 
of  their  cases  which  might  be  entertained  by  appellants  to 
that  superior  court :  — 

PERCENTAGE    OF    LIQUOR   CASES. 


Pending  at 
the  begin- 
ning of 
the  year. 

Begun 

during 

tlie  year. 

Brought 
to  trial. 

Nol.  pros'd. 

Placed  on 
file. 

1881 

249 

— 

2.40 

1.61 

38.15 

1882 

120 

194 

3.50 

4.14 

53.150 

1883 

49 

248 

8.73 

13.46 

49.15 

1884 

42 

295 

— 

38.87 

39.16 

210      THE   RESTEICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

Under  such  conditions  it  is  evident  that  the  law  could 
have  no  terror  for  evildoers.  It  might  be  predicted  with 
safety  that  considerably  more  than  half  the  liquor  cases 
appealed  would  be  nol.  pros' d  or  placed  on  file,  usually  on 
the  payment  of  costs.  If  brought  to  trial,  the  chances  of 
an  acquittal  were  better  than  ever,  for  it  was  a  common 
thing  to  have  liquor-dealers  for  jurymen. 

That  the  leniency  of  the  district  attorneys  toward  the 
liquor  men  was  a  direct  bid  for  their  votes  cannot  be 
doubted  in  face  of  the  fact  that  in  the  lower  court,  where 
no  political  influences  could  be  brought  to  bear,  judgment 
was  swift  and  sure.  As  an  instance,  taking  in  regular  order 
the  prosecutions  instituted  by  the  Law  and  Order  League 
from  June  2  to  December  5,  1884,  we  find  that  thirty-five 
cases  were  tried  before  the  Municipal  Court,  and  in  each 
one  fines  ranging  from  $50  to  $100  were  imposed.  Two 
of  the  defendants  paid,  thirty-three  appealed.  Of  these 
thirty-three  cases,  the  district  attorney  placed  eighteen  on 
file  on  the  payment  of  costs  and  nol.  pros'd  the  remaining 
fifteen. 

At  last  the  pigeonholing  of  liquor  cases  by  the  district 
attorney  had  become  such  an  abuse  that  the  General  Court 
in  1885  saw  fit  to  pass  the  act  providing  that  no  case  for 
the  violation  of  liquor  laws  shall  be  placed  on  file  or  dis- 
posed of  except  by  trial  and  judgment  according  to  the 
regular  course  of  procedure  in  criminal  cases.  That  this 
act  produced  good  results  is  evident  from  the  next  two 
tables,  which  show  the  disposition  of  liquor  cases  tried  be- 
fore the  municipal  and  superior  courts  of  Suffolk  County  ^ 
from  1885  to  1892. 

1  The  returns  cif  the  Superior  Court  include  li(|uor  eases  from  the  city 
of  ("helsea  (poiuilation  27,909)  and  the  towns  of  Winthrop  and  Kevere 
(population  11,394),  all  in  Suffolk  County.  For  this  reason  the  cases  com- 
ing from  those  places  are  given  in  the  returns  of  the  municipal  courts. 
Of  the  latter,  those  for  South  Boston  in  1885  and  1880  are  incomplete. 


ARRESTS   AND   PROSECUTIONS. 


211 


DISPOSITION   OF   LIQUOR   CASES    IN   THE   MUNICIPAL   COURTS 
OF    SUFFOLK   COUNTY,    1885    TO    1892. 


Pending  at  the 
beginning  of 
the  year. 

be 

c 

Percentages. 

Tears. 

3  . 

|2 

—  o 

o 

1  u 

C  d 

Ap- 
pealed. 

1885 

49 

362 

74.20 

1.06 

.26 

57.00 

54.11 

1886 

42 

621 

75.41 

1.76 

6.57 

54.96 

37.01 

1887 

40 

509 

76.50 

2.20 

— 

56.20 

33.20 

1888 

37 

652 

74.89 

.93 

2.96 

52.88 

35.72 

1889 

49 

1,012 

90.38 

3.00 

2.30 

53.85 

28.92 

1890 

102 

721 

88.69 

1.10 

2.49 

66.89 

31.30 

1891 

101 

816 

85.49 

3.11 

3.61 

62.88 

37.64 

1892 

104 

753 

84.83 

.26 

.53 

64.04 

30.06 

DISPOSITION  OF  LIQUOR  CASES  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT,  1885 
TO  1893,  BEGUN  BEFORE  THE  GRAND  JURY  OF  SUFFOLK 
COUNTY  AND  COMING  TO  THE  SUPERIOR  COURT,  1885  TO 
1893. 


he 

Percentages. 

Pending  at 
beginning 
the  3'ear. 

he  » 

a.  xi 

Years. 

Placed 
on  file 
before 
trial. 

Sen- 
tences 
imposed. 

Placed 
on  file 
after 
trial. 

1885 

15 

216 

13.85 

20.34 

20.34 

1886 

73 

319 

2.29 

— 

55.10 

— 

1887 

27 

205 

14.22 

— 

42.67 

- 

1888 

30 

233 

17.11 

2.66 

41.82 

— 

1889 

41 

363 

43.31 

1.23 

42.57 

— 

1890 

39 

260 

9.69 

.33 

49.16 

— 

1891 

25 

230 

6.60 

1.32 

35.68 

66.66 

1892 

41 

279 

2.43 

.34 

45.29 

11.25 

1893 

61 

201 

3.00 

.41 

48.76 

12.21 

212      THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

The  work  done  on  liquor  cases  in  the  different  municipal 
courts  of  the  city  is  very  unequal.  Some  of  these  courts 
are  distinguished  for  the  many  cases  left  untried  at  the 
end  of  the  year,  others  for  the  numher  of  cases  nol.  pros'd. 
The  percentages  given  indicate  a  smaller  number  of  appeals 
than  formerly ;  still,  more  than  one  half  of  the  defendants 
are  not  content  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  lower  courts. 
During  the  last  three  years  there  has  been  a  notable  in- 
crease in  percentage  of  sentences  imposed. 

The  percentage  of  those  made  to  suffer  the  heavier  pen- 
alty of  imprisonment  in  addition  to  fine,  provided  in 
1889,  is  very  small,  nor  is  it  a  frequent  occurrence  that 
the  maximum  fine  is  imposed.  A  reason  for  this  may  be 
that  the  greater  the  penalty,  the  more  likelihood  that  a 
second  trial  of  the  case  will  be  necessary.  By  a  compari- 
son of  the  above  percentages  with  those  on  page  209,  the 
effect  of  the  law  of  1885  prohibiting  the  placing  on  file  of 
liquor  cases  except  on  motion  made  in  open  court,  is  clearly 
seen.  Since  1889  few  cases  have  been  placed  on  file  be- 
fore trial,  but  many  were  disposed  of  in  this  manner  after- 
ward, for  which  the  work  of  probation  officers  is  in  a  meas- 
ure responsible.  It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  in 
1889  44.54  per  cent,  of  the  liquor  cases  were  placed  on 
file  or  nol.  pros'd.  The  act  has  thus  not  entirely  destroyed 
the  tendency  to  favor  accused  liquor-dealers.  So  long  as 
the  office  of  district  attorney  remains  elective,  the  tempta- 
tion is  likely  to  linger. 

But  however  faithfully  the  liquor  cases  are  handled  be- 
fore the  Superior  Court,  the  defendants  may  still  not  be 
without  strong  hope.  On  an  average,  sentences  are  im- 
posed in  less  than  50  per  cent,  of  the  cases  heard  by  that 
tribunal,  and  a  still  smaller  percentage  of  the  trials  results 
in  verdicts  of  guilty.  The  reason  for  this  may  often  be 
that  the  evidence  is  insufficient,  but  it  is  a  common  obser- 
vation that  juries  are  disposed  to  treat  alleged  offenders 


ARRESTS   FOR   DRUNKENNESS.  213 

against  the  liquor  laws  with  peculiar  leniency.  The  full 
statutory  penalty  is  rarely  if  ever  imposed.  A  fine  ranging 
from  $50  to  $100,  with  costs  added,  is  the  usual  punish- 
ment. In  less  than  15  per  cent,  of  the  cases  a  sentence  of 
imprisonment  is  imposed  and  usually  only  when  the  con- 
victed person  is  an  old  offender,  or  when  other  complaints 
have  been  entered  against  him.  In  the  opinion  of  men 
conversant  with  the  matter,  convictions  would  be  less  fre- 
quent than  now,  were  imprisonment  made  the  penalty  in 
all  cases. 

ARRESTS    FOR    DRUNKENNESS. 

In  the  absence  of  trustworthy  statistics  of  consumption, 
the  question  Avhether,  under  the  many  measures  introduced, 
and  the  increasing  stringency  of  the  laws  governing  the 
liquor  traffic,  there  has  been  a  corresponding  improvement 
in  public  sobriety  in  Boston,  is  an  exceedingly  perplexing 
one.  Numerous  factors  must  be  reckoned  with,  the  precise 
influence  of  which  is  not  easily  gauged.  The  laws  under 
which  arrests  are  made  have  been  so  amended  at  different 
periods,  and  even  radically  changed,  as  to  affect  directly 
the  number  of  arrests.  While  the  regulations  issued  to 
the  police,  relative  to  the  manner  of  making  arrests,  have 
been  tolerably  constant,  they  have  been  differently  inter- 
preted under  different  administrations.  The  methods  of 
recording  arrests  have  varied,  and  the  statistics  have  not 
been  compiled  on  a  uniform  plan.  Public  sentiment  as  re- 
gards the  toleration  of  public  drunkenness  has  not  ahvays 
been  the  same  —  at  times  lethargic,  at  others  aroused  and 
making  greater  demands.  Lastly,  the  immense  suburban 
population  of  Boston  living  under  no-license  in  their  homes 
has  added  quota  to  the  Boston  lists  of  arrests  difficult  at 
all  times  to  estimate,  yet  singularly  and  even  visibly  af 
fecting  the  state  of  sobriety  in  this  city. 

For  the  six  years  previous  to  1870,  the  records  of  the 


214      THE   KESTEICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN  MASSACHUSETTS, 

police  stations  were  kept  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  persons  arrested  for  drunkenness  and  discharged 
when  sober,  without  being  taken  before  a  magistrate,  were 
lodgers,  and  the  letter  "  D "  was  attached  to  their  names 
to  distinguish  them  from  those  who  applied  for  lodgings. 
For  example,  in  1869  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  are  put 
down  as  9,954,  and  the  lodgers  marked  "D"  are  given  as 
9,492,  which  indicates  that  the  number  of  arrests  for 
drunkenness  in  that  year  was  19,446.  At  the  beginning 
of  1870  instructions  were  issued  to  record  all  persons  sent 
to  court  for  drunkenness  as  "drunk,"  and  all  who  were 
more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  liquor  when  taken  into 
custody,  and  discharged  when  sober,  as  "disorderly." 
The  only  object  of  these  methods  was  to  conceal  the  actual 
number  of  arrests  for  drunkenness.  The  police  had  no 
more  authority  in  law  to  discharge  on  their  own  responsi- 
bility a  person  arrested  for  being  disorderly  than  they  had 
to  discharge  one  arrested  for  intoxication.  Yet  these 
methods  prevailed  until  1879,  when  an  order  was  issued 
instructing  officers  to  enter  on  the  records  of  all  cases  the 
actual  cause  of  arrest  —  instructions  which  have  since  pre- 
vailed without  any  significant  modification.  But  it  always 
must  remain  a  matter  of  greater  or  less  choice  with  the 
officer  making  the  arrest,  what  kind  of  complaint  is  en- 
tered. Some  discrepancies  in  the  statistics  of  drunkenness 
appear  in  the  official  publications,  which  have  arisen,  no 
doubt,  in  part  from  the  confusion  of  the  terras  "drunk" 
and  "disorderly."  Not  until  1886  and  1887  were  persons 
charged  with  drunkenness  properly  classified. 

At  the  close  of  the  period  of  prohibition,  things  were 
running  so  loosely,  perhaps  owing  to  the  anticipation  of 
a  change,  that  even  a  mildly  enforced  license  law  could 
hardly  help  resulting  in  some  improvement.  During  the 
first  year  of  license  the  arrests  per  1,000  inhabitants  de- 
creased   5.43    (a    total,    as    recorded,    of  18,645    in    1875 


ARRESTS   FOR  DRUNKENNESS,  215 

against  18,090  in  1874).  From  that  time  on  until  1880, 
the  statistics  indicate  a  growing  sohriety  in  the  city.  The 
arrests  for  drunkenness  fell  off  year  by  year  in  proportion 
to  the  population.  But  in  the  light  of  the  exposition 
above  made  of  the  method  of  recording  arrests,  there  seems 
little  ground  for  giving  the  figures  implicit  credence. 
Moreover,  the  licensing  boards  displayed  anxiety  to  prove 
the  value  of  a  license  system  by  the  statistics  of  drunken- 
ness. It  was,  however,  undeniable  that  all  indications 
pointed  to  an  improvement  over  1874. 

In  1880  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  per  1,000  inhab- 
itants rose  suddenly  from  38.68  to  44.67  (total  in  1880, 
17,329,  in  1879,  14,691),  while  the  number  of  arrests  for 
all  offenses  had  not  increased  in  anything  like  the  same 
proportions ;  and  they  continued  to  multiply  in  1881,  reach- 
ing 19,360,  or  49.57  per  1,000  inhabitants.  The  causes 
ascribed  were  (1)  the  reduction  of  the  fine  to  one  dollar  on 
a  first  conviction,  "  which  rendered  men  more  reckless  than 
before ; "  (2)  the  prosperous  condition  of  the  laboring 
classes;  and  (3)  the  "stricter  mode  of  arrests  near  the  rail- 
road stations." 

Some  of  the  largest  suburban  places,  —  Quincy,  Newton, 
Maiden,  Somerville,  —  and  smaller  towns  as  well,  had  at  the 
earliest  opportunity  taken  advantage  of  the  local  option 
law,  passed  in  1881.  As  in  later  years,  in  this  the  out- 
•lawing  of  the  saloon  in  the  suburbs  at  once  swelled  the  lists 
of  arrests  for  drunkenness  in  Boston.  Yet  under  the  same 
lenient  drunk  law  the  arrests  in  1882  to  1884  fell  off  as 
compared  with  those  for  1881  (18,811  in  1882,  18,635 
in  1883,  18,842  in  1884),  while  the  number  of  arrests 
for  all  offenses  took  an  upward  turn.  From  evidence 
elsewhere  given,  it  is  plain  that  the  liquor  element  during 
this  period  was  running  things  with  a  high  hand.  Chiefly 
on  account  of  the  poor  work  of  the  police,  the  rate  of  arrests 
remained  relatively  low. 


216      THE   RESTEICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

In  1885,  when  the  former  penalty  of  a  maximum  fine 
of  $5  for  the  first  offense  was  restored,  and,  of  far  greater 
moment,   the   Metropolitan  Board   of   Police  was   created, 
the  arrests  numbered  16,399,  or  38.94  per  1,000  inhabit- 
ants.     The  results  of  the  special  efforts  to  stop  the  Sun- 
day trade  were  visible  in  the  thinning  out  of  the  municipal 
docks  on  Monday  mornings.      In  1886  the  Sunday  arrests 
decreased  over  17  per  cent,  as  compared  with  the  preceding 
year.    The  arrests  per  1,000  inhabitants  reached  the  lowest 
figure  yet  known  —  38.17,  or  9.81  less  than  in  1875.      In 
1887  the  pendulum  swung  to  the  other  side :  the  arrests 
for  drunkenness  increasing  from  38. 17  per  1, 000  inhabitants 
to  44.46,  and  constituting  a  greater  percentage  of  the  total 
number  of  offenses  for  which  arrests  were  made.      The  city 
of  Cambridge  (population  70,000)   had  voted  no-license, 
which  helped  to  fill  the  Boston  saloons,  and  augment  the 
apprehensions    for    insobriety.      Of    the    total    arrests    for 
drunkenness  this  year  (19,213),  40  per  cent.  Avere  non-resi- 
dents.     Other  places  near  Boston  adopted  the  no-license 
policy  in  1888.      The  percentage  of  non-residents  arrested 
increased  a  little,  while  the  whole  number  of  arrests  for 
drunkenness  (23, 121)  advanced  8.38  per  1,000  inhabitants; 
so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  this  was  out  of  proportion  to 
the  known  outside  influences. 

The  first  year  of  high  license  and  statutory  limitation 
disappointed  the  advocates  of  these  measures,  so  far  as 
arrests  for  drunkenness  were  concerned.  That  year  they 
took  a  further  upward  course  (total,  25,098),  equaling 
3.81  per  1,000  inhabitants  in  excess  of  the  preceding  year. 
Furthermore,  fewer  outsiders  were  apprehended.  Dissatis- 
faction with  the  changes  and  a  disposition  to  evade  them 
are  said  to  have  caused  more  drunkenness.  With  a  greatly 
reduced  number  of  saloons,  and  these  under  better  control, 
other  results  were  naturally  looked  for.  In  1890  the 
number  of  arrests  declined  3.08  per  1,000  inhabitants,  while 


ARRESTS   FOR   DRUNKENNESS.  217 

fewer  arrests  of  non-residents  were  made.  The  vigilance 
of  the  police  had  not  relaxed. 

On  the  1st  of  July,  1891,  a  new  law  ^  on  intoxication 
went  into  effect,  a  measure  of  so  radical  a  nature  that  the 
work  of  the  police  for  the  years  1892-1894  in  making 
arrests  for  drunkenness  cannot  in  fairness  be  compared 
with  that  of  former  years.  Although  the  new  law  was 
operative  for  only  five  months  of  1891,  the  arrests  in- 
creased 6.85  per  1,000  inhabitants,  with  no  corresponding 
increase  in  the  percentage  of  non-residents.  During  this 
short  time,  10,442  persons  were  released  by  the  police. 
In  the  next  year,  the  arrests  reached  the  remarkable 
figure  of  73.45  per  1,000  inhabitants,  or  23  per  cent, 
more  than  in  1891.  A  slight  increase  of  non-residents 
was  also  noticeable.  In  the  belief  that  the  law  tended 
directly  to  encourage  men  to  recklessness  in  their  dissi- 
pation, it  was  amended  in  1893  so  that  persons  arrested 
for  drunkenness  can  no  longer  be  released  except  by  order 
of  the  courts  after  the  investigation  of  their  cases  by  pro- 
bation officers.  A  fine  of  $15  may  be  imposed  and,  in 
default  of  payment,  imprisonment  for  thirty  days.  Per- 
haps chiefly  in  consequence  of  these  changes,  the  arrests 
for  1893  show  a  diminution  of  7.14  per  1,000  inhabitants. 
A  further  decline  for  1894,  which  is  common  to  the  whole 
State,  appears  largely  due  to  the  "hard  times;"  yet  the 
fact  that  wholesale  discharges  without  any  penalty  have 
ceased  may  have  contributed  to  it. 

The  question  as  to  what  extent  the  many  changes  of  law 
and  administration  have  produced  greater  visible  sobriety, 
may  receive  an  approximate  answer  by  reducing  the  statis- 
tics of  arrests  for,  drunkenness  to  averages  for  five-year 
periods,  as  below :  — 

1  Tliis  law  pave  police  officers  power  to  release  -without  order  of  court 
a  person  arrested  for  drunkenness,  and  no  offense  was  punishable  by  tine. 


218      THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 


AVERAGES  OF  ARRESTS  FOR  DRUNKENNESS. 


Periods. 

Average 

population 

(estimated). 

Average 
No.  of 
arrests. 

Average  No. 
of  arrests 
per  1,000 

inhabitants. 

1875-79 

363,302.2 

15,079.2 

41.56 

1880-84 

401,199.6 

18,595.4 

46.45 

1885-89 

432,056.2 

20,023.2 

46.21 

1890-94 

459,423 

28,224.4 

61.41 

The  first  five-year  period  includes  the  years  under  the 
board  of  license  commissioners ;  the  second  those  under  the 
municipal  board  of  police;  in  the  third  is  contained  one 
year  of  high  license  and  statutory  limitation,  and  in  the 
last,  one  year  under  the  old  drunk  law. 

The  averages  obtained  should,  from  the  manner  of  divid- 
ing the  periods,  present  the  matter  in  as  favorable  a  light 
as  possible;  still  they  form  no  basis  for  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  less  public  intoxication  in  Boston  than  formerly, 
while  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  intemperance  was  more 
rampant  from  1880  to  1884  than  indicated  by  the  average. 
The  improvement  in  the  next  period  is  offset  by  conditions 
since  1890.  The  high  average  for  the  last  five  years  can- 
not be  ascribed  simply  to  late  changes  in  the  drunk  law, 
nor  is  there  any  tangible  evidence  to  prove  that  high 
license  and  statutory  limitation  have  helped  materially  to 
reduce  the  number  of  arrests  for  drunkenness.  Such 
would  perhaps  be  the  effect  of  the  present  laws,  provided 
the  kitchen-bar  trade  could  be  wholly  exterminated.  The 
latter  continues  to  be  a  fruitful  source  of  drunkenness.  A 
significant  fact  not  to  be  overlooked  is  disclosed  by  statis- 
tics for  1887-1894,  namely,  that  more  than  50  per  cent,  of 
the  persons  arrested  for  drunkenness  in' Boston  are  of  for- 
eign birth.  Were  it  possible  to  group  the  latter  and  tlie 
non-residents  together,  it  would  probably  be  found  that 
not  over  25  per  cent.,  probably  less,  of  those  annually  filling 
the  police  stations  of  Boston  are  native  residents   of  the 


DISPOSITION   OF  "drunk"   CASES.  219 

city.  It  further  appears  that  the  number  of  females  ar- 
rested for  intoxication  does  not  decline  perceptibly,  but 
only  fluctuates  in  proportion  to  the  total  number. 

DISPOSITION    BY    THE    COURTS    OF    CASES    FOR    INTOXI- 
CATION. 

Until  the  latter  half  of  1891  persons  arrested  for  drunk- 
enness were,  or  should  have  been,  sent  to  court  for  trial. 
Unless  the  culprit  happened  to  be  an  accidental  oftender, 
or  there  were  extenuating  circumstances  in  the  case,  a 
small  fine  was  imposed,  usually  five  dollars.  Common 
drunkards  were  generally  sent  to  jail.  In  an  aggravated 
case,  or  where  other  complaints  could  be  alleged  in  connec- 
tion with  drunkenness,  both  penalties  would  perhaps  be 
imposed.  Only  a  small  percentage  could  hope  to  escape 
punishment  altogether  until  the  act  of  1891  was  passed. 

A  few  cases  are  annually  appealed  to  the  Superior  Court. 
The  reason  for  such  action  is  not  so  much  the  expectation 
of  final  discharge  as  the  wish  to  stave  otf  the  time  for  sen- 
tence, in  the  hope  of  getting  money  to  meet  the  fine,  and 
thus  escape  commitment.  Of  the  number  committed  to 
the  various  penal  institutions,  the  largest  by  far  are  sent 
to  the  Boston  House  of  Industry,  and  includes  persons 
unable  to  pay  fines  and  costs,  as  well  as  confirmed  drunk- 
ards. Sentenced  to  the  House  of  Correction  are  those 
who,  it  appears  in  the  evidence,  have  been  guilty  of  other 
offenses  than  drunkenness.  To  the  jail  are  sent  those  who 
have  appealed  their  cases  and  await  trial.  Statistics  of 
persons  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine,  and  who  actually  pay,  are 
not  at  hand.  It  is  a  conservative  estimate  to  say  that 
more  than  50  per  cent.  pay. 

The  police  returns  contain  lao  special  record  of  the  num- 
ber of  times  the  same  individual  may  be  arrested  for  drunk- 
enness in  the  course  of  one  year.  How  frequently  old 
off'enders  are  brought  before  the  courts  may  be   gathered 


220       THE   EESTKICTIVE    SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

from  the  recommitments  to  the  House  of  Industry.  Pre- 
vious to  1892,  from  61  to  65  per  cent,  of  the  males  com- 
mitted during  one  year  had  before  been  inmates  of  the 
institution.  Many  had  served  more  than  fifty  sentences. 
Not  a  few  spent  half  their  time  "on  the  Island."  One 
man  is  known  to  have  served  eleven  out  of  twelve  months 
on  eleven  convictions.  Of  the  females  a  still  larger  per- 
centage was  recommitted,  which  seems  to  indicate  that 
women  addicted  to  drink  are  less  corrigible  offenders  than 
men. 

One  of  the  complaints  against  the  former  drunk  law  was 
that  many  persons  who  were  not  confirmed  drunkards,  and 
who  found  themselves  unable  to  pay  the  fines  and  costs, 
were  sent  to  an  institution  wholly  lacking  in  reformatory 
influences.  Merely  the  stigma  attached  to  a  person  for 
having  "  done  time  at  the  Island  "  must,  it  is  said,  hasten 
on  a  downward  course.  The  new  law  does  not  appear  to 
have  brought  about  a  signal  improvement  in  this  respect. 
While  the  total  number  annually  committed  to  the  House 
of  Industry  has  been  reduced,  a  relatively  greater  propor- 
tion are  sent  there  for  the  first  time.  A  curious  fact  is 
that  the  greatest  number  of  recommitments  is  of  persons 
who  have  been  sentenced  more  than  five  times.  It  is  said 
to  be  official  experience,  which  apparently  is  borne  out  by 
statistics,  that  after  a  fifth  commitment  a  man  may  be 
given  up  as  lost. 

n.  THE  TRAFFIC  IN  NORTH  ADAMS. 

The  town  ^  of  North  Adams  afi'ords  a  fair  illustration  of 
the  working  of  the  liquor  laws  in  the  smaller  communities 
of  Massachusetts.  With  the  exception  of  one  year,  it  has 
consistently  voted  to  license  the  sale  of  liquor.  North 
Adams  is  remote  from  large  centres  of  population,  without 
having  extensive  rural  districts  tributary  to  it.  But  the 
1  North  Adams  has  since  become  a  city. 


THE   TRAFFIC   IN   NORTH   ADAMS. 


221 


drink  problem  here  is  made  the  more  diflicult  by  the  prox- 
imity of  towns  (notably  Williamstown)  and  villages  which 
as  a  rule  do  not  tolerate  saloons,  yet  furnish  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  consumers  of  liquor  charged  to  North  Adams. 
The  population  is  largely  made  up  of  factory  operatives, 
nearly  all  of  foreign  birth  or  extraction.  Still  the  Amer- 
ican-born element  is  preponderating.  Some  of  the  princi- 
pal occupations  of  the  inhabitants,  as  given  by  the  United 
States  Census  of  1890,  are  appended :  — 


Bookkeepers  and  clerks 

Merchants  and  dealers 

Steam  and  railway  officials  and  employees 

Boot  and  shoe  makers 

Cotton  operatives 

Bleachery  operatives 

Pi-intwork  operatives  . 

Woolen  mill  operatives 

Carpenters   . 

Cigar-makers    . 

Bartenders   . 


155 

187 
280 
403 
370 
201 
584 
288 
168 
161 
21 


In  general  North  Adams  does  not  present  any  character- 
istics, in  marked  contrast  to  those  of  other  communities  in 
western  Massachusetts,  of  special  importance  to  a  consider- 
ation of  the  liquor  traffic. 

Ten  years  ago  licenses  were  granted  Avith  much  free- 
dom. The  fees  were  low,  and  the  licensees  were  not  held 
to  strict  account.  They  were  numerous  and  Avealthy  enough 
to  wield  a  strong  influence  in  politics,  making  themselves 
especially  felt  in  the  election  of  state  representatives.  In 
return  for  their  services  to  others,  they  enjoyed  a  non- 
interference with  their  business  of  sad  consequences  to  the 
community.  The  police  did  little  to  restrain  the  sale 
within  legal  limits.  Minors  and  children  were  permitted 
to  frequent  barrooms,  and  illegal  selling  flourished.  In 
1888,  the  year  before  the  high  license  and  limitation  laws 
went  into  eff"ect,  34  licenses,  including  druggists'  licenses, 


222      THE   KESTKICTIVE    SYSTEM    IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

were  issued,  or,  exclusive  of  the  latter,  one  to  about  550 
inhabitants.      They  were  distributed  as  below :  — 

Of  the  first  class,  26,  fee  .|800 

Of  the  fifth  class  (brewers),  1,  fee  200 
Of  the  fifth  class  (bottlers),  2,  fee  150 
Of  the  sixth  class  (druggists),   5,  fee        1 

Ever  since,  the  number  of  licenses  has  been  regulated 
by  law  —  one  to  1,000  inhabitants.  At  present  sixteen, 
exclusive  of  druggists',  are  issued  annually  by  the  Board  of 
Selectmen. 

LIQUOR   LICENSES   AND   FEES    IN   1893-94. 

First,  fourth,  and  fifth  classes  combined,    4,  $2,300  each. 
First  and  fourth  classes  combined,  12,     1,800  each. 

Sixth  class  (druggists),  9,  1  each. 

The  sudden  reduction  of  licenses  presented  an  opportunity 
for  getting  rid  of  some  of  the  most  objectionable  dealers. 
But  already,  about  a  year  earlier,  a  strong  movement  was 
under  way,  led  by  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Selectmen, 
to  place  the  liquor  traffic  under  better  control.  To-day  all 
the  saloons,  with  one  exception,  are  situated  in  about  two 
blocks  on  the  same  street,  facing  the  police  station,  in  the 
heart  of  the  town.  This  is,  of  course,  an  intentional 
arrangement,  with  a  view  to  easy  supervision  at  all  times, 
as  well  as  in  order  to  remove  the  sale  of  drink  as  far  as 
possible  from  the  homes.  Perhaps  in  no  mean  measure, 
as  a  result  of  this  arrangement,  the  saloons  are  unusually 
orderly.  If  disturbances  arise,  they  are  quickly  quelled. 
The  general  provisions  of  the  law,  such  as  those  against 
maintaining  screens  and  selling  after  hours,  are  well  ob- 
served. Sunday  sales  by  licensed  dealers  even  in  hotels 
are  practically  unknown.  The  revocation  of  licenses  for 
this  cause  has  had  a  wholesome  effect. 

A  system  of  posting  intemperate  persons  in  saloons  is 
in  vogue,  and  admirable  results  are  claimed  for  it.  The 
notice  served  reads  as  follows  :  — 


THE   TRAFFIC   IN   NORTH  ADAMS.  223 

"  This  is  to  notify  you  tliat  my has  the  habit  of  drink- 
ing spirituous  or  intoxicating  licjuors  to  excess,  and  you  are 
hereby  requested  not  to  sell  or  deliver  to  him  any  liquors,  nor 
permit  him  to  loiter  about  the  premises  occupied  by  you,  known 
as ,  in  said  North  Adams." 

On  the  reverse  is  a  copy  of  the  statutes  on  which  the 
notice  is  based  and  explanations  of  the  liability  of  dealers 
who  fail  to  heed  it.      The  notice  ends  thus :  — 

"  If  good  citizens,  who  have  the  weKare  of  their  fellow-men 
at  heart,  will  only  aid  in  this  effort  to  help  those  who  are  suf- 
fering from  the  liquor  traffic,  the  management  of  town  affairs 
will  soon  be  taken  from  the  rum  fraternity,  who  rather  destroy 
than  advance  its  best  interests." 

The  work  of  posting  drunkards  is  done  chiefly  through 
the  medium  of  the  chief  of  police. 

THE    ILLICIT    TRAFFIC    AND    PROSECUTIONS. 

In  spite  of  the  vigilance  of  an  efficient  chief  of  police, 
liquor  is  illegally  sold  at  eight  or  ten  places.  This  would 
correspond  to  the  number  of  United  States  special  taxes 
paid  for  by  residents  of  North  Adams  who  are  not  licensed. 
It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  the  authorities,  who  are  often 
"compelled  to  let  good  cases  go  by  for  lack  of  sufficient 
evidence."  The  lawbreakers  are  emboldened  by  the 
knowledge  that,  should  they  ever  fall  under  the  law,  the 
chance  of  a  final  discharge  is  excellent.  In  the  Municipal 
Court  they  are  almost  sure  of  being  convicted,  but  they 
generally  appeal.  The  mere  fact  that  the  Superior  Court 
of  Berkshire  County  is  about  two  years  behind  on  liquor 
cases  would  of  itself  lend  substantial  cheer  to  the  indicted 
dealer.  At  the  expiration  of  such  a  length  of  time,  the 
once  strong  evidence  may  have  been  dissipated.  But  poli- 
tics also  enter  into  the  question.  The  office  of  district 
attorney  is  elective,  and  that  official  knows  it  to  be  dis- 
tinctly advantageous  to  him  at  the  polls  to  deal  leniently 


224      THE   EESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

with  the  liquor  element.  Not  long  ago  political  pressure 
was  brought  to  bear  upon  a  district  attorney  in  an  unusual 
way  by  citizens  of  North  Adams.  The  town  is  nominally 
Republican  by  800  votes;  but  the  Democratic  district  at- 
torney of  the  county  was  assured  of  reelection  by  means  of 
these  votes,  on  the  promise  that  he  would  pay  more  atten- 
tion to  liquor  cases  coming  from  North  Adams.  He  was 
reelected  and  fulfilled  his  pledge.  By  dint  of  hard  work 
and  pressure  it  has  been  possible  to  secure  convictions  in- 
volving even  imprisonment  as  a  penalty.  Occasionally 
defendants  in  the  lower  court  are  induced  to  pay  a  fine  on 
the  promise  of  escaping  imprisonment.  It  is  estimated 
that  more  than  half  of  the  liquor  cases  go  up  to  the  higher 
court  on  appeals. 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing,  it  is  of  interest  to  note 
that  in  Berkshire  County  United  States  internal  revenue 
collectors  have  refused  to  testify  in  liquor  cases  and  to  give 
information  about  persons  having  paid  a  United  States 
special  liquor  tax.  It  is  asserted  that  politics  have  deter- 
mined this  action. 

The  statistics  of  arrests  for  violations  from  1883-84  to 
1893-94  show  a  smaller  number  during  the  first  three 
years  of  this  period  than  in  any  single  year  following,  not 
because  the  illicit  traffic  was  unknown,  but  owing  to  the 
inactivity  of  the  police.  In  the  one  year  of  no-license 
(1886-87)  the  apprehensions  for  illegal  sales  reached  the 
highest  figure  in  the  history  of  the  town  (85).  The  pub- 
lic had  now  become  aroused  to  the  necessity  of  a  more 
energetic  policy,  the  police  department  was  completely  reor- 
ganized, and  a  chief  selected,  with  a  special  view  to  the 
suppression  of  the  illicit  trade. 

Unlawful  sales  were  still  common  in  1887-88,  and  the 
rate  of  arrests  showed  but  slight  diminution  (82),  The 
heaviest  penalty  imposed  in  that  year  for  illegal  selling 
was   a  fine  of  $350  and  imprisonment  for  eight  months. 


THE   TRAFFIC   IN   NORTH   ADAMS.  225 

In  1888-89  the  number  of  persons  arrested  was  57,  of 
"whoai  thirteen  were  sentenced  to  imprisonment,  and  fines 
were  collected  to  the  amount  of  $2,600.  In  1890-91, 
twenty-four  persons  were  arrested,  of  whom  five  were  sent 
to  jail,  twelve  paid  fines,  two  defaulted,  and  five  were  dis- 
charged. The  year  following  convictions  were  secured  in 
every  case  (eighteen  in  all)  prosecuted.^  Since  1887-88, 
the  number  of  kitchen  bars  has  diminished  notably,  owing 
to  the  persistent  work  of  the  police  in  making  arrests  and 
following  up  the  cases  in  court. 

ARRESTS    FOR    DRUNKENNESS. 

How  considerately  the  police  treated  drunken  persons 
during  the  period  1883-84  to  1886-87,  the  year  of  no- 
license,  is  plain  from  the  sudden  rise  in  the  number  of 
apprehensions  in  1887-88  (from  242  in  1883-84,  306  in 
1884-85,  213,  1885-86,  198,  1886-87,  to  446  in  1887-88). 
To  be  sure,  new  brooms  were  at  work  in  the  police  de- 
partment; yet  in  commenting  upon  the  work  of  the  year, 
the  chief  of  police  could  say,  "  The  figures  for  drunkenness 
barel}'  represent  that  portion  who  have  come  under  the 
eye  of  the  police  so  drunk  and  disturbing  the  peace  that 
it  was  best  they  should  be  arrested."  The  succeeding 
three  years  show  a  slight  decline  in  the  rate  of  arrests  per 
1,000  inhabitants.  Then  came  the  new  drunk  law,  which 
here,  as  elsewhere,  caused  a  greater  frequency  of  arrests 
(total  number  in  1891-92,  571;  1892-93,  572;  1893-94, 
616),  and  is  a  confusing  factor  in  any  attempt  at  forming 
conclusions  from  statistics  of  drimkenness. 

Public  opinion  inclines  to  the  belief  that  drunkenness 
has  diminished  to  some  degree  since  the  high  license  law 
went  into  effect,  but  trustworthy  evidence  is  lacking.  It 
is  probably  safe  to  say  that  the  late   legislation   has   not 

1  Reference  here  and  above  is  to  the  outcome  of  liquor  cases  in  the 
Municipal  Court. 


226     THE   RESTRICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

affected  the  state  of  sobriety  in  North  Adams  to  any  ap- 
preciable extent.  The  new  drunk  law  is  not  looked  upon 
with  favor.  Under  it  313  persons  were  released  by  the 
police  without  trial  between  July  1,  1891,  and  February 
1,  1892.  In  1892-93,  379  were  so  released  and  193  taken 
to  court;  in  1893-94  the  figures  stood  165  and  451  re- 
spectively. Persons  who,  it  is  said,  ought  to  be  fined  or 
confined  for  drunkenness  are  discharged  by  probation  offi- 
cers. Here  again  politics  enter  into  the  question.  Of  the 
number  annually  arrested  for  drunkenness,  it  is  estimated 
that  over  60  per  cent,  are  non-residents.  The  number  of 
persons  arrested  more  than  once  for  drunkenness  was,  in 
1892-93,  11.51  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  arrests, 
and  in  1893-94,  13.34  per  cent. 

That  the  sale  of  liquor  is  as  well  regulated  in  all  the 
other  large  cities  and  towns  of  Massachusetts  as  in  Boston 
and  North  Adams,  is  much  to  be  doubted.  In  most  of 
the  license  cities  the  bane  of  the  influence  of  the  liquor 
element  in  local  politics  is  strongly  felt;  as  a  result,  en- 
forcement is  lax,  and  defiance  of  express  provisions  of  the 
law  common. 

III.    LOCAL  OPTION. 

GROWTH    OF    A    NO-LICENSE    POLICY, 

Comparatively  few  of  the  towns  voted  at  the  March 
meetings  in  1881  on  the  question  of  granting  licenses,  since 
the  local  option  law  did  not  take  effect  until  March  3  of 
that  year;  the  cities  voted  in  December.  Just  to  what 
extent  the  liquor  traffic  had  been  sanctioned  in  preceding 
years  is  not  known.  Many  towns,  and  some  cities,  had, 
however,  long  taken  advantage  of  the  express  provision  of 
the  law,  that  it  shall  not  be  compulsory  for  selectmen  or 
mayors  and  aldermen  to  grant  licenses.  A  no-license  policy 
was  in  vogue  in  many  places  long  before  the  local  option 


LOCAL   OPTION.  227 

principle  was  embodied  in  the  law.  While  it  seems  a 
reasonable  assumption  that  the  traffic  was  not  materially 
checked  during  the  first  year  of  local  option,  it  would  be 
improper,  in  the  absence  of  complete  records,  to  contrast 
earlier  conditions  with  those  prevailing  in  1881.  Yet  it 
should  be  noted  that  more  United  States  special  liquor 
taxes  were  paid  in  1881  than  in  the  preceding  year.  It 
should  also  be  remarked  that  not  a  few  places  which  were 
without  saloons  in  1881  have  since  almost  continuously 
voted  for  license. 

The  greatest  victories  of  the  no-license  advocates  were 
won  in  1885,  1886,  1888,  and  1891.  For  the  purpose  of 
estimating  the  growth  of  the  no-license  policy,  a  comparison 
between  the  years  1881  and  1894  seems  fair;  the  number 
of  communities  voting  for  license  in  the  latter  was  below 
the  average.  In  1881,  63.28  per  cent,  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  State  lived  in  cities  and  towns  granting  licenses  or 
voting  "yes;"  in  1894,  57.43  per  cent,  of  the  population 
(census  of  1890)  Avere  found  in  cities  and  towns  voting 
"yes."  The  gain  of  no-license  in  thirteen  years  is  thus 
represented  by  5.85  per  cent,  of  the  population.  The  next 
census  will,  however,  probably  show  that  there  has  been 
no  gain,  since  the  increase  in  population  in  the  last  four 
years  has  been  largely  in  the  populous  centres,  Avhich  are 
nearly  always  under  license.  Furthermore,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  greater  number  of  persons  now  living 
under  a  no-license  regime  is  solely  attributable  to  the  action 
of  cities  and  towns  within  a  radius  of  twelve  miles  or  less 
from  the  centre  of  Boston;  in  other  words,  of  places  where 
a  no-license  vote  removes  the  drinker  a  short  and  not  seri- 
ously inconvenient  distance  from  the  base  of  supplies. 
Then,  deducting  from  the  total  population  that  of  the  no- 
license  places,  —  Cambridge,  Everett,  Maiden,  Melrose, 
Stoneham,  Somerville,  Wakefield,  Watertown,  Newton, 
Brookline,  Hyde  Park,  Quincy,  Chelsea,  and  Revere,  giv- 


228       THE   EESTEICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

ing  a  total  of  269,283  inhabitants  (census  of  1890),  — it  is 
found  that  65.39  per  cent,  of  the  whole  population  of  the 
Commonwealth  lived  in  cities  and  towns  voting  "yes"  in 
1894.  This  estimate  is  conservative,  since  it  by  no  means 
includes  all  places  influenced  in  the  matter  of  voting 
against  the  saloon  by  the  proximity  of  Boston. 

Setting  aside  the  question  of  the  effect  of  the  local 
option  act  in  1881,  it  appears  that  much  ground  was  lost 
during  the  ensuing  four  years.  Towns  and  cities  which 
had  formerly  prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  Avithout  a  vote 
on  the  question  again  returned  to  license.  Since  1885 
the  temperance  side  has  made  some  permanent  gains.  Still, 
if  one  excludes  the  populous  centres  belonging  naturally 
to  the  "Greater  Boston,"  as  well  as  those  —  for  instance, 
Beverly,  Marblehead,  and  Peabody  —  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  habitual  license  cities,  very  few  among  the 
larger  towns  remain,  and  but  one  city,  which  can  be  said 
to  have  banished  the  saloons  for  good  under  the  local  option 
law. 

The  vote  on  the  license  question  usually  falls  below  that 
of  the  vote  for  mayors  and  selectmen.  Where  the  senti- 
ment is  overwhelming  against  license,  it  is  frequently 
found  that  only  enough  votes  have  been  brought  out  on 
that  side  to  overcome  the  known  license  votes.  In  places 
generally  favoring  the  sale  of  liquor,  the  full  strength  of 
the  pro-license  vote  is  rarely  seen,  unless  special  eff"orts 
are  made  to  shut  out  the  saloon.  That  the  growth  of  the 
no-license  vote  must  not  be  considered  as  equivalent  to  a 
growth  of  a  full-fledged  prohibitory  sentiment  is  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  the  former  is  most  pronounced  in  subur- 
ban Boston  and  in  towns  holding  the  same  relation  to 
license  cities  as  does  Cambridge  to  Boston. 


LOCAL   OPTION.  229 

EFFECTS    OF    NO-LICENSE. 

The  vote  on  the  license  question  exhibits  one  character- 
istic common  to  all  communities  where  the  policy  in  regard 
to  the  liquor  traffic  changes  from  year  to  year,  or  at  irregu- 
lar intervals:  this  is  that  the  majority  carrying  a  city  or 
town  against  license  is  nearly  always  small,  and  is  followed 
by  a  large  adverse  majority  at  the  succeeding  election. 

The  benefits  of  no-license  in  the  smaller  towns  contain- 
ing an  overwhelming  temperance  vote  are  obvious ;  but  not 
quite  so  in  more  important  centres,  although  they  may 
never  legalize  the  liquor  traffic.  The  sale  of  liquor  may 
be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  but  importation  cannot  be 
stopped,  nor  the  formation  of  drinking- clubs.  In  the  case 
of  cities,  the  benefit  of  an  occasional  triumph  of  the  no- 
vote  is  open  to  grave  doubt.  Some  responsibility  for  this 
rests  with  the  law  itself.  A  city  may  vote  no-license  in 
December,  but  the  "  dry "  period  cannot  begin  until  the 
following  ]\Iay.  The  dealers  who  have  lost  their  privileges 
will,  of  course,  continue  to  sell  so  long  as  they  are  not 
seriously  interfered  with.  Efi'ective  enforcement  of  the 
lav/  cannot  be  had  at  once,  sometimes  not  at  all,  for  it  may 
be  that  the  police  favor  the  saloon  element.  In  December 
again  the  city  returns  a  large  majority  for  license.  The 
vigilance  of  the  officers  of  the  law  slackens  or  ceases  com- 
pletely;  public  sentiment  no  longer  demands  it,  so  they 
reason.  The  result  is  that  for  a  few  months  only  —  six  at 
most  —  during  the  no-license  year  have  the  saloon  doors 
been  closed  tightly.  Eemarkable  fluctuations  of  the  vote 
on  the  license  question  observed  in  some  communities  admit 
of  but  one  explanation:  no-license  is  sometimes  obtained 
as  the  consequence  of  a  manufactured  public  sentiment,  as 
unfruitful  of  good  results  as  it  is  fleeting. 

The  value  of  an  annual  vote  on  the  license  question  is 
supposed  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  it  keeps  alive  the  agitation 
for  temperance.      On  the  other  hand,   no  measure  seems 


230    THE   RESTKICTIVE   SYSTEM   IN   MASSACHUSETTS. 

better  calculated  to  force  the  liquor  element  into  political 
activity.  The  victory  of  the  latter  is  certainly  not  a  vic- 
tory for  public  morality  and  a  purer  administration  of 
municipal  affairs. 

Considering  the  State  as  a  whole,  the  number  of  licenses 
has  not  been  reduced  under  the  local  option  law.  A 
marked  falling  off  in  1889  was  wholly  due  to  the  limita- 
tion law  which  then  took  effect.  From  1881  to  1888, 
inclusive,  the  licenses  increased.  The  disproportionate 
growth  of  druggists'  licenses  can  hardly  be  taken  to  repre- 
sent simply  the  legitimate  demand  for  intoxicants  for  me- 
dicinal purposes  in  no-license  towns. 

The  statistics  of  arrests  do  not  support  the  common 
assumption  that  Massachusetts  has  become  more  sober  since 
the  adoption  of  the  local  option  law.  An  increase  of 
arrests  independently  of  changes  in  the  drunk  law  is  quite 
observable.  Moreover,  the  towns,  where  no-license  is 
supposed  to  have  worked  the  greater  salvation,  are  respon- 
sible for  this  increase  equally  with  the  cities.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable that  a  general  and  steady  growth  of  sobriety 
throughout  the  State  should  not  be  indicated  in  the  police 
returns.  This  is  said  with  a  full  understanding  of  hoAV 
conservatively  statistics  of  arrests  should  be  interpreted. 

The  large  foreign  element  added  to  the  population  since 
1882  has,  of  course,  not  helped  to  make  no-license  a  suc- 
cess, but  it  must  be  remembered  that  only  a  small  minority 
of  immigrants  find  their  way  to  the  towns.  Public  intoxi- 
cation does  not  appear  to  decrease  materially  in  consequence 
of  an  occasional  year  of  no-license. 

Note.  In  1896  new  and  stringent  regulations  governing  the  sale  of 
liquor  by  druggists  were  adopted.  In  1897  the  so-called  "express  "  law 
was  passed.  It  requires  packages  containing  intoxicating  liquors  that  are 
carried  into  no-license  places  to  be  plainly  marked  with  the  names  of  seller 
and  purchaser  and  with  a  statement  of  the  amount  and  kind  of  liquor 
they  contain.  Common  carriers  must  keep  a  record  of  the  receijit  and 
delivery  of  liquor  to  residents  of  no-license  places,  the  record  at  all 
times  to  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  mayors  and  aldermen,  boards  of 
license  commissioners,  selectmen,  constables,  police  officers,  justices  of 
the  peace,  etc. 


THE  LIQUOR   LAWS   OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Previous  to  the  high  license  law  of  1887  (the  "  Brooks 
law "),  systematic  and  uniform  regulation  of  the  sale  of 
liquor  in  Pennsylvania  had  not  been  effected.  New  con- 
tingencies, as  well  as  demands  for  more  stringent  measures, 
were  met  from  time  to  time  by  special  local  acts.  But  all 
these  local  laws  have  been  stricken  from  the  books  except 
those  pertainmg  to  prohibition  and  local  option  in  certain 
communities. 

One  of  the  features  of  the  Pennsylvania  law  peculiar  to 
this  Commonwealth  has  been  preserved  from  the  earliest 
times:  that  of  vesting  the  authority  to  grant  licenses  in 
the  judiciary.  Under  the  Duke  of  York's  laws,  promul- 
gated in  1676,  and  the  laws  of  the  proprietary  government 
of  William  Penn,  the  licenses  to  sell  liquor  were  issued 
by  the  governor  to  those  who  were  recommended  "in  order 
thereto  by  the  justices  in  open  court."  This  practice  con- 
tinued until  the  law  of  1815  conferred  directly  upon  the 
Mayor's  Court  of  Philadelphia,  and  upon  the  Courts  of 
Quarter  Sessions  of  the  several  counties,  the  power  to  grant 
tavern  licenses.  The  act  of  1834  renewed  the  authority 
of  the  Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions  to  issue  licenses  on  peti- 
tion, provided  for  the  hearing  of  remonstrances,  and  left 
the  courts  discretion  to  act  in  the  matter  "according  to  the 
necessity  of  the  case."-  By  special  acts  of  the  legislature, 
other  licensing  bodies  were  provided  for  the  cities  of  Phil- 
adelphia and  Pittsburgh,  which  will  be  referred  to  later. 

Until  1856  the  liquor  laws  were  fragmentary.  The 
legislature  of  the  previous  year  was  of  strong  temperance 


232  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

proclivities.  It  passed  what  has  become  known  as  the 
"Jug  Law,"  under  which  no  dealer  could  sell  liquor  in 
quantities  less  than  one  quart,  and  denied  licenses  to  tav- 
erns and  restaurants.  The  law  succeeding  it  revived  sev- 
eral former  acts,  and  remained  in  force,  variously  amended 
at  nearly  every  sitting  of  the  legislature,  until  1887. 
The  high  license  measure  then  enacted  embodies  no  new 
principle  not  inherent  in  previous  legislation.  It  was 
simply  built  up  of  earlier  acts  into  a  more  harmonious 
whole,  and  with  some  modifications  in  detail.  The  license 
fees  Avere  raised,  penalties  for  illegal  selling  increased,  the 
restrictive  features  made  more  stringent,  and  all  its  provi- 
sions made  equally  applicable  to  all  parts  of  the  Common- 
wealth, except  that  the  special  local  option  or  prohibitory 
acts  were  not  repealed. 

A  summary  of  the  law  of  1887  follows :  — 

Licenses  to  be  granted  only  by  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions 
of  the  proper  county  for  one  year  at  the  time. 

Applicants  for  licenses  to  file  their  petitions  with  the  clerk 
of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  at  least  three  weeks  previous 
to  the  session  of  the  court.  A  list  of  the  names  of  the  appli- 
cants, their  residences,  and  the  places  for  which  application  is 
made,  to  be  published  three  times  in  two  newspapers. 

The  petition  to  state  among  other  things  :  the  name  of  owner 
of  jiremises;  that  the  place  to  be  licensed  is  necessary  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  public ;  that  none  of  the  applicants 
is  in  any  manner  pecuniarily  interested  in  the  profits  from  the 
sale  of  liquor  conducted  at  any  other  place  in  the  county ;  that 
the  applicant  is  the  only  person  pecuniarily  interested  in  the 
business,  and  that  no  other  person  shall  have  any  money  in- 
terest therein  during  the  continuance  of  the  license ;  whether 
the  applicant  held  a  license  during  any  part  of  the  year  and  if 
the  license  was  revoked ;  and  it  must  contain  the  names  of  at 
least  two  reputable  freeholders  of  the  ward,  borovigh,  or  town- 
ship where  the  liquor  is  to  be  sold,  who  will  be  the  applicants' 
sureties  in  the  penal  sum  of  $2,000.  The  bondsmen  must  not 
h(\  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  liquors  (an  amendment  of 
1891  provides  that,  when  any  person  is  surety  on  more  than 


THE   HIGH   LICENSE   LAW   OF   1887.  233 

one  bond,  he  shall  certify  that  he  is  worth  $4,000  over  and 
above  all  incumbrances,  and  over  and  above  any  previous  bonds 
he  may  be  surety  on)  ;  the  petition  to  be  verified  by  affidavit 
of  applicant ;  a  certificate  to  accompany  the  petition,  signed 
by  at  least  twelve  reputable  qualified  electors  of  the  ward  or 
township,  and  stating  that  they  know  the  applicant,  believe  all 
his  statements  to  be  true,  and  therefore  ask  that  the  license 
prayed  for  issue. 

The  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  to  hear  petitions  from  resi- 
dents of  the  ward,  borough,  or  township,  in  addition  to  that 
of  the  applicant,  in  favor  of  or  remonstrance  against  the  appli- 
cation ;  and  to  refuse  the  license  whenever,  in  its  opinion,  it  is 
not  necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  public  and  enter- 
tainment of  the  traveler,  or  the  applicant  is  unfit.  Upon 
proper  notice  that  the  licensee  has  violated  any  of  the  liquor 
laws,  the  court  to  revoke  the  license. 

The  license  not  to  be  issued  until  the  applicant  has  executed 
a  bond  to  the  Commonwealth,  and  a  warrant  of  attorney  to 
confess  judgment  in  the  penal  svim  of  $2,000,  conditioned  for 
the  faithful  observance  of  all  the  laws  relating  to  the  sale  of 
liquor,  and  to  pay  all  damages  which  may  be  recovered  in  any 
action  against  him,  as  well  as  all  fines,  costs,  and  penalties  im- 
posed on  conviction  for  violation  of  any  of  the  liquor  laws. 

License  fees :  licensees  resident  in  cities  of  the  first,  second, 
and  third  class  to  pay  $500  ;  in  other  cities,  $300 ;  in  boroughs, 
$150;  and  in  townships,  $75. 

In  cities  of  the  fii'st  class,  four  fifths  of  the  fees  to  go  to  the 
city  and  county,  and  one  fifth  to  the  Commonwealth ;  in  cities 
of  the  second  and  third  class,  two  fifths  to  go  to  the  city,  two 
fifths  to  the  proper  county,  and  one  fifth  to  the  Commonwealth ; 
in  other  cities  and  boroughs,  three  fifths  to  the  city  or  borough, 
one  fifth  to  the  county,  and  one  fifth  to  the  State  ;  in  townships, 
one  half  to  the  township,  one  fourth  to  the  county,  and  one 
fourth  to  the  State,  the  share  falling  to  the  townships  to  be 
applied  to  keeping  the  highways  in  repair. 

The  mercantile  appraisers  to  furnish  a  sworn  statement  to 
the  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  in  January  of  each 
vear,  of  all  licensed  and  unlicensed  places  where  liquor  of  any 
kind  is  sold.  A  list,  containing  the  name  of  each  licensee  and 
the  amount  of  fee  paid,  to  be  published,  as  well  as  a  list  of  all 
unlicensed  places.  The  district  attorney  also  to  be  supplied 
with  a  list  of  persons  selling  liquor  without  a  license,  and  forth- 


234  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

with  to  prosecute  the  offenders  according  to  law.  The  identi- 
cal duty  with  regard  to  making  returns,  under  oath,  of  all  places 
where  liquor  is  sold,  except  at  drug-stores,  enjoined  upon  the 
constables  of  wards,  boroughs,  or  townships  in  each  county. 
Judges  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  to  see  that  such  re- 
turns are  faithfully  made  in  the  first  week  of  each  term  of 
court.  A  constable  found  willfully  neglecting  to  make  full 
returns  to  be  susjjended  by  the  court  from  office,  and  the  dis- 
trict attorney  directed  to  indict  and  try  him ;  the  penalty  a  fine 
not  exceeding  $500  and  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  two 
years,  both  or  either,  at  the  discretion  of  the  courts. 

Among  the  minor  provisions  are  these:  that  licenses  be 
framed  under  glass,  and  conspicuously  hung  on  the  premises ; 
vending  liquor  in  a  room  where  groceries  are  sold,  either  at 
wholesale  or  retail,  is  forbidden ;  no  licensee  selling  liquor  by 
less  measure  than  one  quart  to  trust  or  give  credit  therefor 
under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  such  debt. 

Penalties  ranging  from  $500  to  |5,000  and  twelve  months' 
imprisonment  were  imposed  for  selling  without  license,  and 
from  $100  to  $5,000  and  from  three  to  twelve  months'  impris- 
onment for  violating  the  law  governing  licensed  places ;  and  the 
license  could  be  revoked  if  a  disorderly  place  were  kept. 

Druggists  are  not  required  to  take  out  licenses,  but  they  are 
allowed  to  sell  intoxicating  liquor  only  upon  the  written  pre- 
scription of  a  regular  physician.  Alcohol,  however,  or  any 
preparation  containing  the  same,  may  be  sold  for  scientific, 
mechanical,  or  medicinal  purposes.  But  liquor  must  not  be 
furnished  more  than  once  on  any  one  prescription  of  a  physi- 
cian. 

By  an  act  of  1891  persons  licensed  to  sell  liquor  at  retail, 
resident  in  cities  of  the  first  and  second  class,  must  pay  $1,000 ; 
in  cities  of  the  third  class,  $500 ;  in  all  other  cities,  $300 ;  in 
boroughs,  $150 ;  in  townships,  $75. 


THE   CITY   OF   PHILADELPHIA, 

Philadelphia  is  singularly  fortunate  in  its  territorial  con- 
ditions. Its  population  is  scattered  over  an  area  of  129^ 
square  miles  —  nearly  twice  the  area  of  Brooklyn,  which 
contains  nearly  as  many  inhabitants.  The  city  lines  stretch 
for  twenty-two  miles  along   the  Delaware,    and  run  from 


THE   CITY   OF   PHILADELPHIA.  235 

five  to  ten  miles  inland.  Of  the  nearly  one  million  and 
a  quarter  inhabitants,  only  about  one  third  are  found 
within  the  confines  of  the  old  city,  or  within  a  radius  of 
about  two  miles  from  its  heart.  The  others  have  been 
drawn  farther  and  farther  out,  to  what  were  formerly 
county  villages,  which  even  to-day  are  like  distinct  com- 
munities, acres  of  unoccupied  land  separating  them  from 
the  city  proper.  Abundant  room,  facilities  of  transporta- 
tion, and  financial  enterprises  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
masses  have  helped  to  make  Philadelphia  a  "city  of  homes." 
The  tenement  and  the  apartment  house  are  almost  un- 
known. The  city's  1,046,964  inhabitants  are  housed  in 
187,052  dwellings  (census  of  1890),  an  average  of  5.60 
persons  to  each  as  against  18.52  in  New  York,  8.60  in 
Chicago,  and  8.52  in  Boston.  Not  in  a  single  ward  is  the 
average  higher  than  7.48,  while  in  New  York  it  reaches 
38.50,  in  Chicago  14.52,  and  in  Boston  13.79. 

In  no  other  one  of  our  great  cities  is  the  workman  so  well 
and  comfortably  housed.  But  the  city  has  its  quota  of  the 
vicious  and  shiftless,  who  persist  in  huddling  together  in 
what  are  termed  the  "slums;"  yet  the  quarters  so  desig- 
nated are  not  so  isolated,  or  of  such  an  extent,  that  they 
present  serious  obstacles  to  the  enforcement  of  the  liquor 
laws,  nor  are  they  by  any  means  inhabited  exclusively  by 
a  drinking  class.  The  strongly  represented  foreign  element 
in  these  quarters  belong  to  nationalities  noted  for  compara- 
tive sobriety.  Philadelphia  lays  claim  to  the  title  of  the 
"  most  American  "  of  our  large  centres.  Its  foreign-born 
population  constitutes  but  25  per  cent,  of  the  total,  the  Irish 
ranking  first,  with  10  per  cent. ;  the  Germans  next,  with 
only  7  per  cent. ;  the  English  with  3  per  cent.  It  has, 
however,  assimilated  a  foreign  immigration  of  larger  dimen- 
sions than  perhaps  any  other  city.  And  the  process  has 
been  thorough.  While  racial  types  and  characteristics  still 
linger,  the  foreign  customs,  habits,  and  standards  have  not 


236  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS    OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

been  perpetuated,  or,  at  most,  have  left  but  faint   traces. 
The  colored  population  in  1890  numbered  39,371. 

To  the  large  commercial  and  second  or  third  rate  mari- 
time interests  of  the  city  are  added  those  of  one  of  the 
greatest  manufacturing  centres.  In  its  immense  establish- 
ments, and  in  a  host  of  lesser  ones,  the  workmen  are  of  a 
higher  grade  than  the  ordinary. 

The  schemers  for  local  liquor  legislation  made  Philadel- 
phia their  chief  object  of  solicitude.  In  1849  a  special 
act  was  passed  for  this  city  permitting  any  man  to  sell 
liquor  who  could  pay  for  a  license.  This  law  worked  its 
own  undoing,  and  in  1854  Philadelphia  gave  a  large  major- 
ity for  prohibition;  but  this  was  overcome  by  an  adverse 
majority  in  the  rest  of  the  State.  The  laws  of  1856, 
which,  as  has  been  said,  variously  amended,  remained  in 
force  until  the  passage  of  the  Brooks  bill,  did  not  affect 
Philadelphia  in  some  of  their  main  provisions.  The  licens- 
ing authority  was  not  allowed  to  remain  in  the  hands  of 
the  judiciary,  but  was  vested  in  a  Board  of  Licensers.  The 
licensers,  however,  performed  their  duties  so  conscientiously 
that  the  liquor  element  brought  about  a  repeal  of  the  meas- 
ure, and  also  secured  amendments,  the  principal  one  in 
1864,  which  removed  all  restrictions  in  the  matter  of 
granting  licenses,  but  left  the  courts  power  to  revoke  them. 
An  Excise  Commission  of  four  members  was  appointed. 
They  were  not  expected  to,  nor  did  they,  exercise  further 
authority  than  to  require  a  formal  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  laAV.  While  a  mass  of  red  tape  had  to 
be  unwound  before  a  man  could  get  a  license,  the  privilege 
was  cheap  and  eagerly  sought.  The  method  of  fixing  a 
license  fee  in  proportion  to  the  sales  was  not  conducive  to 
honesty.  So  late  as  in  1886  no  less  than  6,016  saloon- 
keepers out  of  6,059  stated  that  their  annual  gross  receipts 
did  not  exceed  $4,000,  and  so  escaped  with  the  minimum 
fee  of  $50. 


THE   CITY   OF   PHILADELPHIA.  237 

In  addition  to  the  legalized  drinking-places,  liquor  was 
disjiensed,  during  the  regime  of  the  license  commissioners, 
at  numerous  groceries,  so  called,  and  at  other  shops.  In 
fact,  the  violators  of  the  law  in  the  early  eighties  ran  hut 
little  risk  of  serious  interference  hy  the  authorities.  The 
license  commissioners  of  that  period  have  left  no  record  of 
their  work,  but  how  they  performed  it  may  be  gathered 
from  some  instances  of  public  knowledge.  The  act  of  the 
Assembly  creating  Fairmount  Park  forbade  the  sale  of 
liquor  within  its  boundaries.  Nevertheless,  licenses  for 
the  park  were  issued,  the  park  commissioners  refusing  to 
enforce  the  law  and  their  own  regulations.  I^otwithstand- 
ing  the  express  prohibition  of  the  law,  retail  licenses  were 
freely  granted  to  wholesale  dealers.  The  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1881  making  it  illegal  to  license  the  sale  of  liquor  at 
theatres  and  other  places  of  amusement  were  systematically 
ignored.  Saloons  might  be  planted  alongside  churches  and 
schoolhouses ;  protests  went  unheeded.  Saloons  and  beer 
gardens  were  open  on  Sundays.  In  a  few  instances,  when 
the  abuses  became  too  flagrant,  the  licenses  were  revoked  by 
the  courts,  but  only  through  the  persistent  effort  of  the  Law 
and  Order  Society,  not  by  any  exertion  of  the  authorities. 
Numerous  indictments  were  found  by  grand  juries  for  sell- 
ing liquor  without  a  license ;  but  "  owing  to  the  great  press 
of  business  in  the  courts  only  a  few  were  tried."  Not 
until  1885  could  it  be  reported  as  a  "no  longer  uncommon 
thing  to  have  liquor-dealers  convicted  in  our  courts  by 
petit  juries."  If,  however,  the  person  convicted  belonged 
to  the  class  of  unlicensed  dealers,  he  usually  escaped  by 
paying  a  fine  equal  in  amount  to  the  cost  of  a  license,  or 
by  promising  good  behavior  in  the  future.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  resulting  from  the  indiscriminate  mode  of  licensing, 
the  retail  traffic  was  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  least  re- 
sponsible of  dealers,  dives  flourished  on  every  hand,  and 
public  intoxication  was  too  common  to  excite  much  com- 
ment. 


238  THE   LIQUOR  LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

It  were  unjust  to  say  that  this  state  of  things  was  simply- 
owing  to  the  moral  apathy  of  the  community.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  had  repeatedly  been  memorialized  to  furnish 
some  relief,  but  the  restrictive  measures  enacted  remained 
unheeded.  It  is  nearer  the  truth  to  state  that  the  liquor 
interest  fettered  the  hands  of  those  in  power  by  threatening 
them  with  political  annihilation.  The  license  commission- 
ers were  chosen  at  the  bidding  of  the  trade.  The  public 
prosecutors  held  elective  offices,  the  police  magistrates 
were  generally  ward  leaders.  The  judiciary  could  not  be 
asked  to  interfere,  and  its  power  to  revoke  licenses  had  not 
been  fully  established.  Under  the  old  city  charter  there 
was  no  centralization  of  municipal  authority,  the  police 
force  was  a  part  of  the  political  machine,  its  organization 
imperfect,  and  the  mayor,  its  virtual  head,  could  not  com- 
pel it  to  secure  obedience  to  the  laws. 

Party  considerations  superseded  all  others.  To  reach 
office  and  keep  it  required  votes,  and  the  saloons  com- 
manded the  suffrages  of  many. 

The  strength  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  Philadelphia  in 
1886  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  figures :  — 

The  number  of  licensed  saloons  was  6,059;  for  the 
whole  city  there  was  one  saloon  to  26  voters;  one  public 
schoolhouse  to  644  votes;  one  church  to  244  votes;  and 
the  average  number  of  inhabitants  to  each  saloon  139.82. 

It  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  conditions  in  Philadel- 
phia were  typical  of  those  prevailing  throughout  the  State. 
This  city  and  Pittsburgh  suffered  under  local  laws  guaran- 
teeing in  fact  the  liquor  trade  a  non-interference,  which  it 
had  not,  with  a  few  exceptions,  secured  elsewhere.  From 
these  cities,  accordingly,  issued  the  most  urgent  appeals  for 
restrictive  and  more  uniform  legislation.  The  high-license 
law  of  1887  may  properly  be  called  a  Philadelphia  measure, 
being  draughted  and  urged  by  citizens  of  this  municipality. 
It  was  not  really  a  matter  for  surprise,  as  so  frequently 


THE   BROOKS   LAW.  239 

remarked,  that,  with  a  liquor  interest  so  strongly  intrenched, 
the  law  of  1887  could  be  passed. 

The  leading  dealers  were  shrewd  enough  to  see  that  the 
retrenchment  of  the  privileges  of  the  trade,  necessarily 
growing  out  of  the  proposed  changes,  would,  to  the  fortu- 
nate ones,  mean  a  golden  harvest,  regardless  of  the  higher 
fee  to  be  paid.  The  true  significance  of  giving  the  entire 
power  to  deal  with  liquor  licenses  to  the  judiciary  was  not 
apparent  to  the  trade  in  general. 

THE    LIQUOR    TRAFFIC    UNDER    HIGH    LICENSE. 

The  "Brooks  law  "  went  into  effect  in  1888.  The  first 
license  court  in  Philadelphia  sat  from  the  last  days  of  Feb- 
ruary until  the  middle  of  May,  1888.  No  less  than  3,426 
applicants  appeared  before  the  judges  anxious  to  pay  the 
fee.  The  courage  and  high  sense  of  duty  of  the  new 
licensers  was  a  revelation  to  many.  The  character  of  each 
applicant  was  closely  inquired  into.  Maps  had  been  pre- 
pared showing  the  location  of  all  the  places  petitioning  for 
licenses  with  a  view  to  their  better  distribution.  Of  the 
great  number  of  applicants,  the  court  refused  licenses  to 
more  than  1,340.  "Many  bold  and  defiant  lawbreakers 
were  rejected."  Much  of  the  credit  for  the  reduction  of 
licenses  was  due  to  the  Law  and  Order  Society,  which  sup- 
plied the  needed  information  and  prepared  remonstrances. 
The  rigid  censorship  of  applications,  and  the  demonstration 
that  the  court  discharged  its  licensing  functions  without 
fear  or  favor,  had  a  subduing  effect  on  the  liquor-dealers. 
The  license  became  a  valuable  franchise  not  to  be  jeopard- 
ized by  gross  violations  of  the  law.  Still  offenses  were 
common.  While  the  municipal  authorities  devoted  some 
attention  to  the  suppression  of  the  illegal  traffic,  the  task 
of  keeping  the  licensed  dealers  within  legal  bounds  was 
left  mainly  to  the  private  organization,  the  Law  and  Order 
Society. 


240  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS    OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 

Tlie  new  law,  as  has  been  shown,  had  not  made  any 
special  provision  for  the  wholesale  liquor  trade.  In  1889 
and  1890  there  was  a  large  increase  of  applications  from 
this  class  of  dealers,  the  Supreme  Court  having  decided 
that  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  lacked  discretionary 
power  to  refuse  them.  In  1890  nearly  a  thousand  whole- 
sale licenses  were  granted,  and  in  some  instances  to  persons 
who  had  previously  been  denied  retail  licenses.  Although 
the  acts  of  1891  doubled  the  fee  for  retail  trade,  and  placed 
the  wholesale  traffic  under  the  same  restrictions  as  to  the 
method  of  obtaining  licenses,  the  scramble  for  the  coveted 
prizes  was  not  diminished.  There  was  no  marked  falling 
off  in  the  number  of  applicants  until  1894.  With  the 
expansion  and  growth  of  the  city,  however,  the  list  of 
retailers  has  been  increased  to  provide  for  the  "necessary 
accommodation  of  the  public ; "  but  the  number  of  whole- 
salers, under  the  act  of  1891,  was  cut  down  nearly  one 
half,  and  it  has  since  remained  about  stationary.  Spas- 
modic efforts,  usually  originating  in  Philadelphia,  to  bring 
about  the  abolishment  of  the  license  court  and  a  return  to 
an  excise  commission,  have  always  failed.  These  efforts 
have  not  even  had  the  undivided  support  of  the  trade. 
Dealers  having  a  firm  hold  on  their  licenses  could  not  be 
expected  to  relinquish  any  part  of  their  monopoly,^  and 
the  creation  of  an  excise  board  would  be  tantamount  to 
diffusing  the  trade. 

JUDGES    AS    LICENSERS. 

There  is  a  manifest  reluctance  among  members  of  the 
bar  to  continuing  the  judges  as  licensers.  This  is  not 
based  only  on  the  general  ground  that  judicial  and  execu- 

1  The  profits  of  a  few  saloons  are  estimated  to  ranjje  from  .'8!20,000  to 
$50,000  a  year.  About  70  average  from  $10,000  to  $12,000  apiece.  In 
the  middle  northern  section  the  value  of  a  license  is  placed  at  about 
$5,000  a  year.  One  saloon  catering  to  mill  hands  and  salt-work  laborers 
make*  an  annual  j)ro(it  of  $15,000. 


JUDGES   AS   LICENSERS.  241 

tive  functions  should  be  kept  distinct;  it  rests  on  far  more 
special  grounds.  Under  the  Pennsylvania  system,  applica- 
tions for  licenses  are  of  course  acted  upon  in  open  court, 
(In  Philadelphia  the  license  court  sits  for  several  days  in 
the  month  of  March  of  each  year.)  The  judges  are  re- 
quired to  receive  petitions  for  and  remonstrances  against 
the  applications.  Although  in  the  performance  of  their 
ordinary  duties  no  one  would  venture  to  try  to  influence 
the  decisions  of  the  judges  by  word  of  mouth  or  by  letter, 
it  is  very  different  in  license  cases.  The  feeling  is  not 
easily  avoided  that  judges  may  be  approached  in  these 
cases.  It  is  a  physical  impossibility  for  them  to  acquaint 
themselves  thoroughly  with  the  merits  of  each  application, 
the  character  of  the  petitioner,  and  to  inspect  the  place  to 
be  licensed,  and  they  must  act,  and  do  act,  largely  on  out- 
side advice.  Accordingly  persons  feel  at  liberty  to  write 
to  the  court,  and  an  application  may  be  decided  upon  ad- 
versely without  the  applicant's  knowledge  of  the  power 
defeating  him.  While  it  has  been  declared  more  than 
once  by  judges  that  they  will  not  receive  either  petitions 
or  remonstrances  except  in  open  court,  the  circumstance 
that  they  feel  impelled  to  make  this  declaration  is  signifi- 
cant. And  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  these  judges 
are  men  of  the  highest  standing,  whose  work  as  licensers 
also  merits  high  commendation,  the  feeling  is  widespread 
among  certain  classes  that  they  can  and  must  be  approached 
in  license  cases.  A  number  of  so-called  "shyster"  law- 
yers, who  make  it  a  business  to  look  after  the  affairs  of 
liquor-dealers,  do  not  scruple  to  spread  the  belief  that  it 
is  necessary  to  influence  the  court;  and  they  make  it  a 
source  of  profit.  It  was  knowledge  of  such  proceedings 
which  led  a  judge  to  remark,  "  Should  it  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  the  court  that  any  amount  has  been  paid  or  prom- 
ised in  excess  of  a  fair  compensation  for  legal  services  ren- 
dered, it  will  be  considered  a  satisfactory  reason  for  refusing 
a  license." 


242  THE  LIQUOE  LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

It  seems  beyond  doubt  that  in  some  quarters  confidence 
in  the  judiciary  has  been  impaired  through  the  medium  of 
the  license  court,  although  fair-minded  men  have  nothing 
but  unstinted  praise  for  its  actions. 

The  position  of  the  judiciary  is  further  embarrassed  by 
the  circumstance  that  it  is  elective.  The  judges  of  the 
Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  are  chosen  by  the  people  for  a 
term  of  ten  years.  Election  to  a  judgeship  may  often  be 
equivalent  to  a  life  tenure;  yet  the  fact  that  the  office  is 
elective  necessitates  the  identification  of  the  candidate  with 
party  politics.  Where  the  liquor  element  is  a  strong  factor 
in  politics,  it  is  difficult  for  him  to  steer  clear  of  it  —  at 
all  events  it  is  a  source  of  temptation,  especially  in  the 
smaller  counties.  Generally  speaking,  citizens  are  natu- 
rally prone  to  suspect  a  judge,  hard  pressed  in  an  electoral 
contest,  of  reaching  out  for  the  liquor  vote,  and  trimming 
his  actions  accordingly.  Many  judges  are  anxious  to  be 
relieved  of  all  executive  responsibilities,  and  particularly 
of  those  appertaining  to  liquor  licenses. 

To  return  again  to  the  work  of  the  Philadelphia  license 
court,  it  is,  beyond  cavil,  performed  impartially  and  with  a 
view  to  public  interests. 

The  law  is  explicit  on  the  point  that  the  number  of 
licenses  to  be  issued  shall  be  conditioned  by  public  "neces- 
sity," and  the  position  taken  by  the  Philadelphia  court 
appears  from  the  following  remark  made  by  one  of  the 
judges  in  1894:  "It  will  be  understood  that  the  court 
must  be  satisfied  of  the  public  necessity  for  an  increase  of 
the  number  of  licenses  before  the  merits  of  the  particular 
applicants  will  be  inquired  into." 

The  petitioners  therefore  bend  every  energy  to  con- 
vince the  court  of  the  necessity  for  the  license  prayed  for, 
when  the  good  character  of  the  applicant  has  been  estab- 
lished, and  other  formalities  have  been  observed.  To  this 
end  they  rely,  not  merely  on  the  persuasiveness  of  their 


THE   LICENSE   SYSTEM   IN   POLITICS.  243 

advocates,  but  upon  the  indorsements  of  residents  of  their 
neighborhood  and  on  general  petitions,  as  required  by  the 
law.  The  eventual  refusal  of  a  license  depends  mainly  on 
the  remonstrances  presented.  But  citizens  are  generally 
reluctant  to  file  objections,  or  secure  signatures  to  remon- 
strances ;  and  if  it  were  not  for  the  persistent  work  of  the 
Law  and  Order  Society  in  this  respect,  formidable  opposi- 
tion to  the  numerous  applications  annually  presented  would 
be  out  of  the  question,  at  least  at  present. 

While  the  rule  is  followed  to  renew  licenses  without 
question,  provided  no  specific  remonstrance  is  lodged  against 
the  licensees,  and  while  many  petitions  receive  no  attention 
whatever,  because  the  court  always  finds  that  "  enough " 
licenses  have  been  granted  before  the  list  of  applicants  is 
exhausted,  much  original  work  remains  to  be  done.  Be- 
sides, the  question  of  license  transfers  comes  up  frequently 
throughout  the  year. 

In  order  to  gain  a  clear  comprehension  of  the  power  be- 
hind the  license  applications  advocated  in  the  court,  as  well 
as  of  the  operations  of  the  laws  themselves,  the  part  played 
by  the  liquor  element  in  city  politics  must  be  considered. 

When,  in  1886,  the  number  of  voters  to  each  saloon, 
based  on  the  gubernatorial  vote  of  that  year,  averaged  only 
twenty-six,  it  required  no  keen  insight  to  understand  the 
hopeless  case  of  the  political  aspirant  who  had  gained 
the  ill-will  of  both  the  licensed  and  unlicensed  dealers. 
The  special  legislation  for  Philadelphia  previous  to  1887 
reveals  the  extent  of  the  influence  wielded  by  the  liquor 
trade.  Under  the  outgrown  city  charter  then  in  force, 
the  management  of  municipal  affairs  was  certainly  open  to 
grave  criticism.  Under  the  Bullitt  charter  (of  1887),  the 
municipal  service  has  been  improved,  but  the  activity  of 
the  saloon  in  politics  has  not  diminished.  Bossism  has 
been  the  ruling  element  in  municipal  life,  accompanied  by 
the  usual  "rings"  and  "combines;"  and  where  these  exist 


244  THE    LIQUOE   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

vote-getting  and  vote-holding  become  the  supreme  neces- 
sity of  the  hour,  which  again  brings  the  saloon  to  the 
front  as  a  centre  of  ward  politics.  Every  application  for  a 
license  must  be  accompanied  by  a  certificate,  signed  by  at 
least  twelve  reputable  electors  of  the  wards,  boroughs,  or 
townships,  indorsing  the  applicant,  and  praying  that  the 
license  be  issued.  The  signing  of  a  certificate  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  signer  is  a  spokesman  for  the 
liquor  interest  in  general.  A  choice  may  arise  between 
applicants  of  widely  different  characters,  one  of  whom  is 
pretty  sure  to  obtain  a  license.  A  signer  who  gives  his 
influence  in  favor  of  the  better  applicant  is  not  compro- 
mised. An  applicant  in  seeking  indorsements  naturally 
turns  to  those  upon  whom  he  has,  or  fancies  he  has,  a 
hold,  and  whom  he  regards  as  particularly  influential.  He 
seeks  out  first  the  politicians  and  office-holders. 

The  lowest  rung  on  the  political  ladder  is  represented  in 
Philadelphia  by  the  office  of  school  director.  On  an  aver- 
age about  thirteen  of  these  officials  are  elected  for  each 
ward.  While  nominally  of  a  non-political  character,  the 
office  is  much  sought  as  a  stepping-stone  to  higher  honors. 
Of  496  school  directors  in  the  thirty-seven  wards,  146 
signed  certificates  of  license  applicants  in  1894,  and  411 
licenses  were  signed  for,  an  average  of  2.81  by  each  school 
director. 

The  lower  branch  of  city  councils,  which  took  office  in 
April,  1894,  consists  of  123  members.  With  one  ward 
left  out,  the  records  of  the  license  court  ^  show  that  eighty- 
one  of  them  appeared  as  signers,  bondsmen,  or  counsel  — 
one,  both,  or  all  three  —  for  from  one  to  twenty  licensees 
apiece.  In  fifteen  wards  every  member  signed  certificates; 
ftt  least  five  of  these  are  liquor-dealers.  Of  the  thirty- 
seven  members  of  Select  Councils,  the  upper  house,  twenty- 

1  Thu  writer  is  indebted  to  Mr.  James  F.  Daily,  of  the  Philadelphia 
Ledger,  for  the  statistics  of  the  license  court. 


THE   LICENSE   SYSTEM   IN   POLITICS.  245 

seven  became  sponsors  for  licensees  by  signing  or  bonding 
for  from  one  to  twenty-five.  Of  the  twenty-eight  police 
magistrates  in  the  city,  twenty-three  are  signers  or  bonds- 
men for  license  applicants.  Policemen  are  frequently 
found  as  signers.  Seven  clerks  of  the  Court  of  Quarter 
Sessions  (the  license  court)  sign  for  from  one  to  thirty 
licenses  apiece.  A  like  number  of  employees  in  the  sher- 
iff's office,  and  that  official  himself,  sign  for  from  one  to 
fifteen  applicants.  To  this  already  long  list  could  be  added 
the  names  of  many  other  city  officials  —  even  prosecuting 
officers  —  who  interested  themselves  in  liquor  licenses  in 
1894.  Of  the  eight  Philadelphia  state  senators  whose 
terms  expired  in  November,  1894,  the  names  of  six  are 
found  among  the  signers,  counselors,  or  bondsmen  for 
liquor-dealers  in  the  last  license  court.  Of  the  thirty-nine 
members  for  Philadelphia  in  the  state  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, thirty  signed  license  applications  or  liquor  bonds 
in  1894.  In  August  of  the  same  year  a  city  district  com- 
mittee met  to  decide  upon  a  congressional  candidate.  This 
committee  included  one  court  official  who  had  signed  for 
thirty  license  applicants,  one  member  of  councils  who  had 
signed  or  bonded  for  fourteen,  and  one  state  senator  who 
had  signed  eight  applications.  The  candidate  agreed  upon, 
and  who  was  elected,  had  identified  himself  with  the  inter- 
ests of  five  saloons  in  his  own  ward. 

The  Philadelphia  delegation  of  1894,  which  helped  select 
the  successful  candidate  for  governor,  consisted  of  sixty- 
three  members.  Among  these  were  two  liquor-dealers, 
two  directors  of  breweries,  and  thirty-eight  who  were  sign- 
ers or  counsel  or  bondsmen  for  from  one  to  thirteen  license 
applicants  apiece. 

From  a  cursory  examination  of  the  records  of  the  last 
license  court,  it  appears  that  officials  of  some  thirty  Prot- 
estant churches  attached  their  signatures  to  license  applica- 
tions or  certificates.      That  they  should  do   so,    notwith- 


246  THE    LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

standing  the  fact  that  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  with  which 
they  affiliate  have  declared  in  favor  of  an  anti-saloon  pol- 
icy, is  explained  on  the  ground  that  they  dare  not  refuse 
the  requests  of  the  liquor-dealers.  This  is  in  harmony 
with  the  remark  of  one  of  the  highest  authorities  on  the 
subject,  "Few  men,  least  of  all  those  connected  with  poli- 
tics, dare  refuse  requests  to  aid  applicants  for  licenses." 
That  men  do  not  always  lend  their  services  cheerfully  is 
patent  from  the  anxiety  evinced  by  many  lest  their  names 
as  signers  and  bondsmen  appear  in  the  newspapers. 

The  indorsement  of  a  license  application  may  be  a  mat- 
ter of  formality  only  when  it  concerns  a  dealer  who  is 
already  established  in  business,  and  against  whom  no  objec- 
tion is  filed.  Yet  this  does  not  affect  the  principle  in- 
volved, nor  the  fact  that  the  political  strength  of  the 
liquor  traffic  finds  expression  in  the  character  and  position 
of  the  men  who  act  as  its  spokesmen  before  the  license 
court,  whether  by  letter  or  by  personal  appearance. 

At  the  present  time  it  is  not  supposed  that  the  signa- 
tures attached  to  a  license  application  determine  the  issue, 
for  the  necessity  of  the  place  applied  for  is  made  the  co7i- 
ditio  sine  qua  non.  But  when  no  choice  exists  as  to  the 
characters  of  two  aspirants,  the  one  who  can  show  indorse- 
ments of  "a  police  captain,  police  lieutenant,  member  of 
the  councils,  and  member  of  the  legislature  "  would  natu- 
rally be  favored  before  the  other,  whose  signers  are  persons 
of  a  less  accepted  standing  in  the  community. 

The  intimate  relation  of  the  liquor  element  to  local  poli- 
tics aff'ects  the  police  department  in  a  peculiar  manner.  It 
was  an  open  secret  under  the  old  regime  that  the  police 
force  was  recruited  at  the  bidding  of  politicians.  The  new 
city  charter  provided  for  appointments  on  a  civil  service 
basis,  but  the  evidence  is  strong  that  a  "pull"  is  still  tlio 
main  dependence  of  candidates.  So  pernicious  has  the 
political  activity  of  city  employees  become,  that  not  long 


THE   LICENSE   SYSTEM   IN   POLITICS.  247 

ago  the  attention  of  the  State  was  invited  to  it,  in  a  guber- 
natorial message,  in  the  following  words :  — 

"  The  new  charter  of  Philadelphia  was  granted  upon  the  ex- 
press stipulation  and  provision  that  the  vast  powers  conferred 
upon  the  executive  should  be  absolutely  free  from  political 
interference  and  control  .  .  .  and  yet  at  the  last  city  election 
the  city  employees  were  repeatedly  assessed  upon  official  ap- 
proval. .  .  .  Many  of  the  powers  of  the  municipality,  notably 
that  of  the  police,  were  used  with  virulence  against  the  rights 
of  the  minority."     (Message  of  Governor  Pattison,  1891.) 

Citizens  have  lately  protested  against  the  interference  of 
the  police  in  local  contests.  But  the  force  remains  a  part 
of  the  political  machine.  Its  superior  officers  are  best 
described  as  "shrewd,  hard-working  politicians."  As  such 
they  are  forced  to  take  account  of  the  liquor  interest.  The 
bearing  of  this  on  the  enforcement  of  the  liquor  laws  is 
plain. 

Whatever  care  may  be  exercised  in  distributing  the 
licenses,  the  general  result,  regardless  of  their  number,  has 
not  been  to  provide  simply  for  the  "necessary  accommoda- 
tion of  the  public."  The  proportion  of  licenses  to  the 
population  points  in  this  direction.  It  is  rather  a  common 
thing  to  find  two  or  more  saloons  on  opposite  corners,  and 
that  in  the  largely  residential  quarters  of  the  city.  Ap- 
parently no  systematic  effort  is  made  to  centralize  the  sale 
in  the  business  section,  although  the  trade  naturally  gravi- 
tates towards  it.  The  isolated  situation  of  some  of  the 
wards  enhances,  perhaps,  the  difficulty  of  such  a  plan. 
The  method  now  followed  brings  the  saloons  into  all  neigh- 
borhoods. So  far  as  is  known,  there  is  no  concerted  action 
in  any  ward  to  have  them  excluded.  Yet  at  least  two 
wards  could  do  so  by  virtue  of  old  local  option  laws,  which 
were  passed  before  the  districts  were  annexed  to  Philadel- 
phia, and  have  not  been  repealed.  Late  attempts  at  reviv- 
ing these  laws  have  failed  for  want  of  public  support.      In 


248  THE   LIQUOR  LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  saloons  keep  pace  with  the 
movement  of  population.  The  average  number  of  inhab- 
itants to  each  license  is  at  present  about  5G2.  The  number 
of  licenses  granted  has  been  greatly  reduced  since  1887. 
In  that  year  the  number  of  retail  licenses  granted  was 
5,773;  in  1890,  1,173  out  of  2,921  applications;  in  1894, 
1,667  out  of  2,729  applications. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  transfers  of  licenses.  In 
other  States  a  liquor  license  is  regarded  as  a  personal  privi- 
lege like  the  temporary  commission  of  an  official.  In 
Pennsylvania  both  local  and  personal  transfers  of  liquor 
licenses  are  recognized.  The  latter  kind  is  effected,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  court,  only  on  the  payment  of 
a  sum  approximating  the  value  given  to  a  place  by  the  fact 
of  its  being  licensed.  In  so  far  the  license  is  regarded  as 
property,  but  it  is  not  held  as  a  part  of  a  person's  estate 
which  can  be  attached  for  debt  or  devised  to  others  upon 
his  death.  Usually  transfers  are  allowed  only  upon  the 
plea  of  advanced  age,  ill  health,  or  similar  conditions.  In 
all  cases  the  person  to  whom  the  license  is  transferred 
must  comply  with  all  the  formalities  prescribed  for  original 
applicants,  except,  of  course,  that  he  is  not  required  to  pay 
an  additional  fee.  This  transfer  business  has  grown  rap- 
idly of  late,  and  easily  leads  to  abuse. 

A  classification  of  the  licenses  operated  in  1894,  and  the 
fees  paid  by  them,  follow :  — 

61  brewers .         .         .         .        .         .        .        $61,000.00 

187  wholesalers 187,000.00 

263  bottlers 78,900.00 

1  distiller 1,000.00 

1,664  retailers 1,664,000.00 

City  and  appraisers'  fees  ....  7,300.56 

Total $1,999,200.56 

The  restraints  resulting  from  the  present  laws  which 
best  serve  to  hold  the  dealers  in  check  are  the  discretion 


THE   LAW   AND   ORDER   SOCIETY.  249 

exercised  by  the  courts  in  granting  licenses  and  the  know- 
ledge tliat  the  license  may  bo  revoked  if  sufficient  cause 
is  shoAvn,  the  licensee  then  becoming  forever  debarred  from 
obtaining  a  new  privilege  in  any  part  of  the  Common- 
wealth. The  judges,  however,  appear  reluctant  to  resort 
to  so  extreme  a  measure.  It  has  even  been  held  that  one 
or  two  violations  of  the  law,  unless  of  the  gravest  charac- 
ter, are  not  sufficient  cause  for  revoking  a  license.  When 
a  case  of  this  kind  arises,  it  is  not  referred  to  a  jury. 
The  complainant  applies  for  a  rule  of  court  citing  the  de- 
fendant to  show  cause  why  the  license  in  question  should 
not  be  revoked.  In  1894  no  licenses  were  thus  canceled. 
The  judges  prefer  to  punish  oifenders  by  refusing  a  re- 
newal of  their  licenses.  For  various  causes,  twenty-three 
bottlers  and  seven  retailers  lost  their  privileges  at  the  last 
license  court. 

In  consequence  of  the  valuable  franchise,  regardless  of 
its  cost,  which  the  liquor  license  has  become,  the  tone  of 
the  whole  trade  has  been  raised.  The  improved  character 
of  the  saloon  is  remarked  upon  by  all  observant  citizens. 
Sunday  selling  has  ceased,  and  minors  are  usually  kept  out 
of  the  saloons.  The  wholesale  dealers  have  stopped  sell- 
ing liquor  to  be  consumed  on  their  premises.  In  many 
places  great  care  is  taken  not  to  sell  to  persons  already  vis- 
ibly under  the  influence  of  liquor. 

The  fear  of  the  dealers,  however,  is  not  so  much  of  in- 
terference on  the  part  of  the  municipal  authorities  as  of 
the  Law  and  Order  Society.  By  common  consent,  the 
closer  observance  of  the  law  is  to  be  credited  chiefly  to 
the  unremitting  labor  of  this  organization.  With  it  the 
complainants  file  their  statements,  and  they  look  to  it  for 
action.  But  with  the  means  at  its  command  it  cannot 
keep  the  large  number  of  saloons  scattered  over  so  vast  an 
area  under  constant  surveillance.  Infractions  of  the  law 
are  by  no  means  uncommon.     Latterly,  a  number  of  dealers 


250  THE    LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

have  shown  unusual  boldness.  Since  the  last  license  court, 
at  least  fifteen  saloons  have  violated  the  law  by  introducing 
vocal  and  other  entertainments,  to  which  women  and  chil- 
dren have  been  drawn  in  large  numbers. 

The  absence  of  any  law  prohibiting  screens  and  other 
obstructions  to  a  view  of  the  bar  traffic  from  the  street  is 
a  protection  to  the  unscrupulous  dealer.  Policemen,  Avere 
they  generally  so  disposed,  cannot  see  what  is  going  on 
within,  without  leaving  their  beats,  and  they  are  not  sup- 
posed to  enter  saloons  except  for  special  reasons.  Wher- 
ever it  is  profitable  to  do  so,  the  saloons  are  kept  open 
from  shortly  after  twelve  o'clock  Monday  morning  until 
the  same  hour  Sunday  morning,  except  on  election  days. 
It  is  not  uncommon  in  certain  sections  of  the  city  to  see 
a  string  of  men  waiting  for  a  saloon  to  open  as  soon  as  the 
last  hour  of  the  legal  Sunday  is  over,  some  of  them  carry- 
ing the  inevitable  "growler." 

The  law  does  not  provide  for  analysis  or  for  any  inspec- 
tion of  the  liquor  retailed,  and  many  saloons  are  known  to 
sell  an  article  of  the  most  injurious  kind:  the  so-called  five- 
cent  whiskey,  which  is  often  nothing  but  a  chemical  com- 
pound prepared  from  day  to  day. 

The  provision  of  the  law,  that  the  licensee  shall  be  the 
only  person  pecuniarily  interested  in  the  business  of  a 
saloon,  and  that  one  man  may  not  control  more  than  one 
license,  is  evaded,  and,  doubtless,  to-day,  as  formerly, 
numerous  retail  places  are  owned  by  brewers  and  distillers, 
the  nominal  licensee  being  simply  the  manager.  The 
obligations  of  the  retailer  to  the  persons  who  furnish  sup- 
plies may  put  him  practically  in  their  power.  They  ad- 
vance the  license  money,  trust  him  for  goods,  take  a  mort- 
gage on  the  fixtures.  The.  many  judgments  executed  by 
manufacturers  of  liquor  against  those  who  sell  their  goods 
are  proofs  of  this.  It  is  commonly  reported  that  "com- 
bines" exist  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  a  number  of 


THE   ILLICIT  TRAFFIC.  251 

saloons.      One  such,  with  a  police  magistrate  at  its  head, 
is  said  to  own  sixteen  shops. 

THE    ILLICIT    TRAFFIC. 

Under  the  old  law,  selling  without  a  license  was  not 
infrequent,  but  the  easy  access  to  legalized  establishments, 
every  hour  of  the  week,  prevented  such  selling  from  be- 
coming very  profitable.  After  the  introduction  of  the 
high  license  law,  the  "  speak-easy  "  became  a  regular  insti- 
tution in  Philadelphia.  At  the  present  time,  liquor  is  sold 
without  license  at  the  "speak-easies,"  or  "  kitchen  bars " 
proper,  at  chartered  and  unchartered  clubs,  at  houses  of 
ill  fame,  and  by  some  druggists.  Only  an  approximate 
estimate  of  the  extent  to  which  the  law  is  violated  can  be 
given.  The  United  States  special  taxes  paid  do  not  fur- 
nish a  clew.  Apparently  little  effort  is  made  to  collect 
the  revenue  except  from  those  Avho  hold  a  city  license, 
from  prominent  clubs,  the  "speak-easy"  keepers  who  are 
brought  into  court  for  violating  the  law,  and  from  drug- 
gists. A  thorough  examination  of  the  internal  revenue 
records  confirms  this.  A  policeman  having  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  all  sections  of  the  city,  questioned  as  to 
the  number  of  "speak-easies,"  replied  unhesitatingly, 
"There  are  at  least  six  thousand."  While  this  statement 
must  be  regarded  as  exaggerated,  it  is  beyond  doubt  that 
the  illegal  places  exceed  by  not  a  little  the  number  of 
licensed  retailers.  The  "  speak-easies  "  are  not  confined  to 
any  particular  localities,  but  naturally  abound  in  the  dis- 
tricts inhabited  by  the  less  well-to-do  people,  and  in  the 
so-called  "slums."  The  investigation  did  not  extend  to 
the  latter  places.  Most  of  the  illegal  venders  restrict  their 
business  to  the  Sunday  hours,  and  carry  it  on  in  private 
houses.  Custom  is  sought  exclusively  among  acquaint- 
ances. No  strangers  are  admitted  unless  vouched  for  by 
friends.      On  a  Sunday  afternoon  or  evening,  one  may,  in 


252  THE  LIQUOR  LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

certain  sections,  wander  from  block  to  block,  and  find  from 
one  to  half  a  dozen  "  speak-easies  "  in  each.  None  appears 
to  lack  trade,  nor  is  heavy  drinking  the  exception.  A 
dozen  persons  seems  a  small  gathering  in  a  "speak-easy;" 
frequently  from  twenty  to  thirty,  both  men  and  women, 
are  found  crowding  the  narrow  quarters.  Neither  the 
proprietors  —  often  women  —  nor  their  guests  are  always 
of  that  brutal  type  one  involuntarily  associates  with  the 
illegal  liquor  traffic.  Exceptions,  however,  are  not  want- 
ing. Other  vices  than  that  of  drunkenness  find  a  congen- 
ial soil  in  the  "speak-easies."  Another  class  of  "speak- 
easies "  continues  operations  throughout  the  whole  week. 
They  are  commonly  run  under  the  guise  of  cigar  stores  or 
news-stands.  The  multitude  of  small  tobacco-shops  in 
Philadelphia  attracts  the  attention  of  the  observant  visitor. 
Closer  inspection  shows  that  many  of  them  do  not  depend 
upon  a  legitimate  trade.  The  sale  of  liquor  in  a  rear  room, 
accompanied  by  gambling  of  various  kinds,  is  the  main 
source  of  profit.  Again,  men  who  have  been  employed  in 
large  mills  or  factories  establish  "speak-easies"  "for  the 
accommodation  of  friends,"  as  one  of  them  remarked,  for 
mill-owners  and  manufacturers  sometimes  object  to  the 
proximity  of  saloons  to  their  works. 

The  question,  Do  not  the  police  try  to  suppress  the 
illegal  selling  1  must  be  answered  both  with  a  yes  and  no. 
Raids  are  made,  in  some  years  a  good  many,  but  never 
unless  there  is  full  evidence  of  guilt  and  always  \ipon 
warrant.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  proof  that  the  small 
fish  are  caught  and  the  big  let  go.  Instances  have  ap- 
peared where  detectives  detailed  to  collect  evidence  about 
"  speak-easies  "  have  reported  their  non-existence,  in  direct 
contradiction  to  the  testimony  of  reputable  citizens.  When 
a  ward  leader  undertook  to  defy  the  law,  he  was  permitted 
to  run  an  establishment  difi"ering  but  little  in  appointments 
and  size  from  an  ordinary  saloon.     When  the  complainants 


THE   ILLICIT  TRAFFIC.  253 

grow  too  clamorous,  it  often  happens  that  the  police  will 
warn  the  offender,  and  give  him  time  for  exit.  The 
friendly  relations  between  police  officers  and  "speak-easy" 
keepers  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  strangers  may  be  intro- 
duced to  the  resorts  of  the  latter  by  policemen  in  person. 
It  is  vain  to  deny  that  the  police  profit  from  the  illicit 
trade.  It  is  not  understood  that  blackmail  is  levied  sys- 
tematically or  on  a  large  scale.  Weekly  stipends  of  from 
$5  to  $25,  according  to  the  business  of  the  particular 
place  and  the  other  illicit  practices  accompanying  the  sale 
of  liquor,  are  mentioned  as  being  paid,  but  in  a  round- 
about way.  The  police  are  repeatedly  assessed  by  their 
superiors,  and  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  system  that  the  for- 
mer should  seek  to  recoup  themselves.  The  temptation, 
as  well  as  the  opportunity,  is  daily  at  hand.  Whether  this 
kind  of  protection  is  extended  by  others  than  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  force  is  not  positively  known.  Those  highest 
in  command  are  certainly  above  suspicion,  but  they  are  too 
much  entangled  by  party  consideration  to  act  in  the  matter, 
even  if  aware  of  the  true  state  of  things. 

Illegal  liquor-selling  goes  on  in  a  multitude  of  clubs, 
so-called.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  law  under  which 
a  club  may  be  licensed.  The  right  of  a  chartered  organi- 
zation to  dispense  drink  to  members  has  never  been  seri- 
ously challenged  until  of  late  years.  The  rule  has  com- 
monly been  held  by  the  courts  that  the  high  license  law 
does  not  apply  to  clubs  when  selling  is  restricted  to  mem- 
bers. There  is,  however,  a  diversity  of  opinion  on  this 
subject.  Lately  a  decision  was  rendered  declaring  all  club 
sale  of  liquor  illegal.  The  question  is  likely  to  remain  in 
dispute  until  an  opinion  has  been  rendered  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  Since  the  high  license  law  went  into  operation, 
the  number  of  the  so-called  social  clubs  has  increased  pro- 
digiously. Some  of  them  are  recognized  political  factors, 
and  have  other  purposes  than  the  sale  of  liciuor  for  profit. 


254  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

It  is  apprehended,  however,  that  liquor-selling  is  the  prin- 
cipal motive  of  these  mushroom  organizations.  The  regu- 
larly chartered  associations  of  a  distinctive  club  character 
are  not  more  than  seventy-five  in  number,  if  so  many,  and 
represent  only  a  fraction  of  the  "  clubs "  where  liquor  is 
sold.  Some  of  the  latter  have  obtained  charters  from  the 
Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  but  the  majority  have  none,  or 
masquerade  under  the  charters  of  disbanded  societies  of 
which  they  have  come  into  possession. 

Members  are  usually  admitted  to  the  rooms  by  key. 
The  discrimination  as  to  membership  is  not  severe,  pro- 
vided the  visitor  is  considered  "safe."  Some  clubs  draw 
exclusively  on  workingmen,  who  pay  weekly  dues  of 
twenty-five  cents  each,  which  entitles  the  member  to  bring 
a  friend.  The  business  done  in  one  of  these  establishments 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  bar  receipts  of  nearly 
$650  Avere  shown  for  a  single  Sunday.  It  was  hardly 
surprising  that  not  one  of  the  members  was  sober.  The 
colored  residents  have  their  own  drinking-clubs.  When 
a  club  of  this  description  has  a  political  tinge,  especially 
when  ward  leaders  are  enrolled  among  the  members,  —  no 
matter  how  low  its  order,  —  it  is  not  interfered  with.  Clubs 
where  gambling  is  the  chief  diversion,  next  to  drinking, 
thrive  under  the  shadow  of  the  Public  Buildings.  Yet  it 
must  be  conceded  that,  under  the  existing  conditions,  the 
authorities  cannot  very  well  meddle  with  the  chartered 
clubs  without  acting  arbitrarily. 

The  legal  provision  enjoining  the  ward  constables  to 
report  to  the  courts  the  number  of  licensed  and  unlicensed 
liquor-shops  within  their  respective  bailiwicks  is  a  dead 
letter. 

Of  the  740  druggists  in  Philadelphia,  some  are  known 
to  do  a  lively  trade  in  spirits  other  than  alcohol,  which 
latter  may  be  sold  for  special  purposes  without  a  license. 
The  best  informed  persons,  however,  hold  that  compara- 
tively few  druggists  offend  in  this  respect. 


ARKESTS   AND   PROSECUTIONS.  255 

ARRESTS    AND    TROSECUTIOXS. 

Infractions  of  the  law  by  licensed  dealers  do  not  always 
lead  to  their  arrest.  More  commonly,  as  already  remarked, 
a  rule  of  court  is  applied  for  to  show  cause  why  the  license 
of  the  offender  should  not  be  revoked,  or  the  matter  is 
allowed  to  rest  until  the  next  sitting  of  the  license  court, 
when  renewal  of  the  license  is  refused.  The  difficulty  of 
obtaining  sufficient  evidence  to  convict  in  liquor  cases  has 
also  been  referred  to.  The  statistics  of  arrests  for  viola- 
tions for  the  last  ten  years  show  the  following  totals:  In 
1884,  15;  1885,  15;  1886,  — ;  1887,  103;  1888,  195; 
1889,  203;  1890,  235;  1891,  523;  1892,  363;  1893, 
280;  1894,  270.  The  largest  number  of  arrests  for  selling 
on  Sunday  were,  in  1887,  75;  1888,  50;  1892,  90;  1894, 
80;  the  smallest  were  in  1885,  8;  1891,  5.  The  largest 
number  for  selling  to  minors,  in  1887,  22;  1888,  21; 
smallest  in  1884  and  1894,  1  each.  The  marked  increase 
in  arrests  after  the  introduction  of  the  high  license  law 
points  no  less  to  an  increase  of  illicit  selling  than  to  more 
vigorous  efforts  to  enforce  the  law.  The  large  number 
reached  in  1891  was  chiefly  due  to  a  change  in  the  police 
department,  resulting  in  unwonted  zeal  in  rooting  out 
"speak-easies,"  which,  however  seems  to  have  subsided. 

There  are  several  halting-places  before  the  arrested 
offender  is  finally  brought  to  trial.  He  is  first  arraigned 
before  one  of  the  police  magistrates.  The  office  of  magis- 
trate, it  should  be  remembered,  is  elective,  the  term  being 
for  five  years.  Although  really  representing  the  lowest 
branch  of  the  judiciary,  it  is  not  necessary  that  those 
sitting  in  magistrates  courts  should  be  members  of  the  bar 
or  even  be  versed  in  the  law.  They  are  frequently  found 
to  lack  both  of  these  qualifications.  They  reach  and  hold 
office  by  means  of  political  scrambling.  "Ward  leaders" 
is  the  epithet  often  applied  to  them  by  the  press.     As  such, 


256  THE   LIQUOK   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA, 

peculiar  duties  sometimes  confront  them;  for  instance, 
Avhen  a  "  ward  heeler "  is  brought  before  them  to  be  ar- 
raigned. It  is  not  intended  to  convey  the  impression  that 
all  the  magistrates  are  embarrassed  by  political  obligations, 
or  that  all  are  unfitted  to  properly  discharge  their  great 
responsibilities;  but  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  some  of 
those  who  have  been  most  vigorous  in  dealing  with  liquor 
cases  have  been  "turned  down"  when  seeking  a  renomi- 
nation.  One  listens  in  vain  for  an  expression  of  thorough 
confidence  in  the  magistrates  as  a  body.  They  keep  no 
record  of  the  warrants  issued  by  them,  nor  is  any  but  the 
scantiest  information  regarding  their  work  given  to  the 
general  public.  Whether  their  leniency  is  accountable  for 
the  discrepancy  between  the  number  of  persons  arrested  for 
violations  and  of  those  brought  to  trial  is  not  known  posi- 
tively ;  but  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  grant  more  than 
one  favor. 

If  held,  the  trial  of  the  accused  is  not  yet  a  matter  of 
certainty.  The  action  of  the  grand  jury  must  first  be 
awaited.  A  disposition  to  regard  violations  of  the  liquor 
law  as  essentially  diifering  from  other  misdemeanors  is 
known  to  manifest  itself  in  that  body.  If  an  indictment 
be  found,  it  remains  for  the  district  attorney  to  bring  the 
accused  to  trial.  The  time  intervening  may,  however,  be 
long,  and  this  is  a  distinct  gain  to  the  defendant.  Besides, 
liquor  cases  appear  to  be  handled  with  greater  reluctance 
than  others,  and  it  is  difficult  to  get  direct  evidence.  The 
fact,  too,  that  the  prosecuting  officer  holds  an  elective  posi- 
tion is  fateful  to  more  than  one  liquor  case.  When  the 
trial  takes  place  the  chances  of  the  defendant  may  be  mate- 
rially improved  by  the  manoeuvring  of  his  counsel.  Not 
all  judges  take  the  same  view  of  offenses  against  the  liquor 
laws.  Some  regularly  suspend  the  sentence  of  first  offend- 
ers, although  a  bond  must  be  given  to  insure  good  behav- 
ior for  the  future.      "  It  has  now  become  a  settled  practice 


TRIALS   FOR   ILLICIT   SELLING. 


257 


of  these  men  (the  defendants  in  li(juor  cases)  to  have  their 
cases  continued  whenever  they  happen  to  be  brought  be- 
fore a  judge  ^  who,  it  is  believed,  will  impose  both  the  fine 
and  imprisonment  provided  by  statute."  (Keport  of  the 
Law  and  Order  Society,  1894.) 

The  hoped-for  clemency  of  the  court  doubtless  explains 
why  so  many  of  the  defendants  plead  guilty.  It  should 
be  noted  that  the  persons  discharged  under  bond  cannot, 
as  held  by  some  judges,  be  resentenced  after  the  expiration 
of  one  year.  In  jury  trials,  a  verdict  of  "not  guilty"  is 
rendered  in  more  than  one  half  of  the  liquor  cases.  An 
analysis  of  the  statistics  of  the  trial  and  disposition  of  cases 
for  violation  of  the  liquor  law  in  1892,  1893,  1894,  yields 
the  following  results :  — 


1894. 


Of  the  persons  brought  before  the 
court,  the  plea  of  guilty  was 
made  by 

Of  the  persons  actually  tried,  were 
acquitted 

Of  the  persons  actually  tried,  were 
convicted 

Of  the  persons  pleading  guilty  or 
convicted,  were  sentenced  to 
fine  and  imprisonment     .     .     . 

Sentences  of  persons  pleading 
guilty  or  convicted  suspended  . 


1892. 

1893. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

69 

39 

77 

54 

23 

46 

78 

45 

21 

54 

Per  cent. 


66 
60 
40 

47 
53 


In  a  majority  of  cases,  the  jury  trials  result  in  acquit- 
tals, partly,  perhaps,  because  violation  of  the  liquor  law  is 
an  offense  more  easily  condoned  by  the  public  than  others, 
and   partly   because   of   the    diificulty   in    producing    over- 


1  The  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  in  Philadelphia  is  composed  of  twelve 
judges. 


258  THE   LIQUOK   LAWS    OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

whelming  evidence.  Should  a  verdict  of  "guilty  "  be  ren- 
dered, there  is  more  than  an  even  chance  that  sentence 
may  be  suspended.  Only  in  rare  cases  is  the  full  term  of 
imprisonment  allowed  by  law  imposed;  never,  it  is  said, 
the  maximum  fine.  Still,  sentences  to  a  year's  confine- 
ment and  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  $1,500  or  $2,000  are 
sometimes  recorded.  A  judge  may  reconsider  the  sentences 
imposed  within  his  term  of  court.  In  this  way  the  offend- 
ers occasionally  escape  a  part  of  the  punishment. 

The  law  of  Pennsylvania  gives  prison  inspectors  the 
right  to  discharge  prisoners  who  have  not  paid  their  fines, 
upon  their  making  oath  to  a  statement  that  they  do  not 
possess  money  or  property  of  any  kind.  This  relieves  the 
prisoners  from  waiting  three  months  to  take  advantage  of 
the  insolvent  debtor's  act.  Within  a  short  time  after  the 
introduction  of  the  high  license  law,  fines  to  the  amount 
of  $38,850  were  imposed  for  illegal  selling,  but  only  the 
sum  of  $100  was  paid  (this  by  a  woman).  Later,  seventy- 
two  persons  were  released  in  one  year  without  having  paid 
their  fines.  In  1893  and  1894,  111  violators  of  liquor 
laws  were  sentenced  in  Philadelphia,  and  fines  imposed 
aggregating  $78,340,  not  a  cent  of  which  has  been  collected, 
except  in  a  few  cases  the  costs  ($16.75). 

ARRESTS    FOR    DRUNKENNESS. 

The  laAV  governing  arrests  for  drunkenness  formerly  im- 
posed a  fine  of  five  dollars,  which  in  1858  was  reduced  to 
two  dollars,  but  later  again  restored  to  the  old  limit.  The 
large  powers  conferred  upon  the  authorities  by  this  act  — 
any  person  seen  intoxicated  could  be  fined  by  mayor,  alder- 
man, or  justice  —  have  been  impaired  by  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  to  the  efi'ect  that  a  police  ofiicer  has  no 
right  to  arrest  a  citizen  merely  because  he  is  under  the  in- 
fiuencc  of  liquor,  if  he  is  not  guilty  of  a  breach  of  the  peace. 
The  penalty  imposed  is  now  usually  a  fine  of  four  dollars 


AKRESTS   FOR   DRUNKENNESS.  259 

and  costs,  and,  in  default  of  payment,  imprisonment. 
There  is  no  system  of  probation.  Officials  in  the  penal 
institutions  assert  that  magistrates  are  often  arbitrary  in 
dealing  with  intoxicated  persons,  and  that  the  latter  do 
not  always  get  a   proper  hearing. 

The  decreased  number  of  arrests  since  the  high  license 
law  went  into  operation  is  so  universally  put  forward  as 
proof  of  its  benefits  that  the  subject  merits  special  exami- 
nation. Data  seemingly  warranting  the  assumption  that 
the  reduction  of  licensed  places  is  followed  by  a  proportion- 
ate diminution  of  consumption  is  not  of  a  kind  to  be  ac- 
cepted unreservedly.  In  Philadelphia,  as  elsewhere,  beer 
drinking  appears  to  be  on  the  increase,  and  supplanting 
to  some  extent  the  consumption  of  distilled  spirits.  The 
brewing  interest  of  Philadelphia  has  grown  enormously, 
and  now  represents  a  capital  of  over  thirty  million  dollars. 

Prior  to  the  high  license  law  the  drinking  classes  re- 
sorted almost  exclusively  to  the  saloons,  which  Avere 
everywhere  near  at  hand,  and  open  at  all  times.  The 
sellers  had  nothing  to  fear  from  selling  to  persons  on  the 
verge  of  intoxication  or  wholly  drunk.  Ordinarily  they 
had  no  reason  to  shield  such  customers,  and  upon  becom- 
ing obnoxious  these  were  probably  thrust  into  the  street, 
only  to  fall  into  the  arms  of  some  policeman.  Where 
intoxication  was  largely  public  in  its  origin  the  list  of 
arrests  would  inevitably  be  swelled  in  some  proportion. 
With  the  sweeping  reduction  of  saloons  in  1888  began  the 
illicit  selling  by  "  speak-easies  "  and  clubs  which  has  as- 
sumed such  magnitude,  and  necessarily  affected  consump- 
tion; still  the  intoxication  resulting  from  it  is  not  gener- 
ally traceable  in  the  police  returns.  Personal  investigation 
has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  habitues  of  "  speak-easies  " 
are  not  limited  as  to  the  quantity  of  liquor  they  may  ob- 
tain, but  that  great  care  is  taken  to  prevent  them,  if  intox- 
icated, from  falling  victims  to  arrest.     They  are  not  ejected 


260  LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

even  for  cause,  but  are  permitted  to  sleep  off  the  debauch 
on  the  premises.  For  should  it  appear  that  the  place  was 
a  prolific  source  of  drunkenness,  neighbors  might  complain, 
if  the  police  took  no  action,  or  it  might  result  disastrously 
to  the  "speak-easy  "  keeper  should  the  arrested  person,  from 
revengeful  motives  or  under  compulsion,  divulge  where  he 
became  drunk. 

The  class  of  the  drinking  population  which  furnishes 
inmates  for  prisons  and  workhouses  are  no  more  deterred 
from  getting  liquor  when  the  saloons  are  closed  than  for- 
merly, for  the  unlicensed  places  are  open. 

All  available  information  indicates  that  home  drinking 
has  grown.  Many  intelligent  workmen  consulted  are 
agreed  on  this  point,  and  they  deplore  the  frequency  of 
drunkenness  among  women.  "The  beer  does  it,"  one  of 
them  remarked.  Beer  is  cheap,  and  supplies  are  easily 
obtained.  The  fact  is  noteworthy  that  Philadelphia  has 
only  187  wholesale  dealers,  but  263  bottlers,  who  pay  a 
lower  fee.  The  wares  of  the  botlers  are  often  sold  directly 
from  the  wagon  without  previous  orders.  In  this  manner, 
not  only  saloons  are  supplied,  but  private  houses  as  well. 
The  traffic  (the  legality  of  it  has  not  been  tested)  amounts 
in  some  cases  almost  to  peddling  beer. 

When  comparisons  of  the  statistics  of  arrests  for  drunk- 
enness are  made  with  those  of  other  cities,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  Philadelphia,  considering  her  area,  is  not 
properly  patrolled.  The  longer  the  beat  to  be  covered, 
the  less  the  disposition  of  the  officer  to  meddle  with  in- 
toxicated persons,  and  the  better  opportunity  for  the  latter 
to  go  undetected.  With  a  larger  police  force,  and  one  less 
touched  by  outside  influences,  it  is  obvious  that  the  arrests 
would  have  been  larger  both  before  and  since  the  high 
license  law. 

Statistics  for  the  ten  years  (1884-1894)  show  the  follow- 
ing totals  of  arrests  for  drunkenness,  the  number  including 


ARRESTS   FOR    DRUNKENNESS. 


261 


tlie  three  classes,  —  common    drunkards,  drunk  and  disor- 
derly, and  intoxicated  persons  :  — 

AUUESTS    FOU    DRUNKENNESS    IN    PHILADELPHIA,  1884-189-1. 


1884 
1885 
1880 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1800 
1891 
1892 
189:5 
1894 


25,898 
27,346 
29,278 
29,204 


Arrests  per 

1,000  estimated 

Population. 


31.69 
32.14 

35.88 
25.86 
20.50 
24.76 
24.27 
25.15 
26.45 
23.80 


Although  the  arrests  per  1,000  inhabitants  have  decreased 
perceptibly  since  the  enactment  of  high  license,  they  have 
not  fallen  so  much  below  those  of  the  years  previous  to 
1887.  The  upward  tendency  from  1892  to  1893  is  ex- 
plained by  some  persons  as  the  consequence  of  an  increase 
in  the  number  of  licenses.  The  arrests  in  1894  were 
numerically  greater,  but  not  in  proportion  to  the  growth 
of  population.  Stringent  times  have  of  late  crippled  the 
purchasing  power  of  many  drinkers.  The  fact  remains 
that  arrests  for  intoxication  have  diminished  under  high 
license,  but  this  is  not  conclusive  proof  of  actually  greater 
sobriety.  Prison  officials  incline  to  the  view  that  there  is 
but  little  difference  in  the  amount  of  drunkenness.  The 
fact  that  fewer  persons  are  charged  with  disorderly  conduct 
while  being  drunk  must  be  credited  to  the  better  character 
of  the  saloons.      The   number   of  habitual   drunkards  has 


262  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

not  fluctuated  much,  but  what  constitutes  the  off"ense  of 
habitual  drunkenness  is  not  clearly  defined.  The  charge 
of  vagrancy  may  often  be  preferred  against  a  person  origi- 
nally arrested  for  being  drunk,  that  he  may  receive  a 
longer  term  of  confinement.  The  somewhat  arbitrary  mode 
of  dealing  with  this  poor  class  of  humanity  makes  it  im- 
possible to  determine  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  the 
nvimber  of  recommitments  for  intoxication  in  the  course  of 
a  year.  In  1888-89  a  reduction  of  licenses  was  followed 
by  a  decrease  of  arrests  for  drunkenness,  but  the  next  year 
the  arrests  increased,  though  the  licenses  were  decreased. 
But  during  the  last  two  years  the  number  of  arrests  has 
not  kept  pace  with  the  increase  of  saloons. 

The  best  evidence  of  a  law-abiding  spirit  among  the 
licensed  dealers  is  the  statistics  of  Sunday  arrests,  which 
show  a  falling  oflf  from  2,101  in  1886-87,  and  1,263  in 
1887-88,  to  628  in  1892-93,  and  541  in  1893-94. 

DELAWARE   COUXTY. 

One  need  but  look  across  the  city  line  into  Delaware 
County  to  find  a  license  policy  in  vogue  utterly  different 
from  that  pursued  in  Philadelphia.  Much  of  this  sec- 
tion is  suburban  to  Philadelphia.  With  the  exception  of 
Chester,  there  is  no  city  here  of  any  magnitude,  the  popu- 
lation (74,683  in  1890)  being  strictly  rural  where  not 
domiciled  in  small  villages  or  boroughs.  Under  the  pres- 
ent county  judge  —  he  has  held  office  for  twenty  years  — 
a  license  regime  of  the  most  liberal  type  has  existed.  A 
brief  review  of  the  doings  of  the  last  license  court  will 
serve  to  illustrate  the  possible  workings  of  one  provision 
of  the  Pennsylvania  law. 

The  annual  license  court  for  1895  was  held  on  the 
2d  of  January.  All  the  old  applicants,  seventy-six  in 
number,  had  their  licenses  renewed,  none  being  remon- 
strated against.      Of  the  thirty-nine  new  applications,   five 


DELAWARE   COUNTY.  263 

were  granted,  thirty-three  were  held  under  advisement  after 
being  argued  at  length,  and  but  one  was  refused  outright. 
A  long  contest  ensued  over  an  application  for  a  hotel  license 
in  the  borough  of  Darby  (population  2,972),  which  is 
within  a  few  minutes'  walk  of  the  Philadelphia  line,  and 
no  farther  from  licensed  saloons.  The  remonstrance  was 
signed  by  1,270  adult  residents  of  Darby  borough  and 
vicinity,  of  whom  670  were  adult  residents  of  the  borough; 
297  resident  tax-payers,  and  thirty-four  non-resident;  forty- 
five  of  the  fifty-five  business  men  of  the  borough ;  the  bur- 
gess, president,  and  five  of  the  six  councilmen ;  five  of  the 
six  school  directors;  267  adult  male  residents  of  the  bor- 
ough from  a  registry  list  of  510;  the  whole  clergy  and  a 
number  of  educators.  The  court  refused  to  consider  the 
names  of  women  signers.  The  petitioners  presented  a  list 
of  signatures  of  about  the  same  length.  The  court  stated 
that,  if  a  majority  of  the  resident  tax-payers  were  in  favor 
of  a  license  at  Darby,  he  would  grant  it.  Two  hours  were 
spent  in  pruning  the  lists,  each  side  trying  to  prove  a  ma- 
jority. The  court  figured  up  a  majority  of  four  for  the 
license  advocates,  but  a  number  of  names  remained  in  dis- 
pute. Decision  was  reserved.  Five  days  later,  the  judge 
began  his  third  successive  term  on  the  Delaware  County 
bench.  His  first  duty  was  to  dispose  of  the  new  license 
applications  left  over  from  the  regular  license  court.  Nine- 
teen were  granted,  and  among  them  the  Darby  license. 
In  rendering  his  opinion,  the  court  said  that  a  small  ma- 
jority seemed  to  be  in  favor  of  license.  This  was  one  rea- 
son, but  there  was  a  better  one. 

"  The  remonstrants  admit  that  a  house  is  needed  for  trav- 
elers and  strangers,  but  also  say  there  is  no  necessity  for  a 
public  liouse.  The  opposition  here  shows  the  necessity.  The 
Supreme  Court  has  ruled  that  where  tlie  necessity  is  estab- 
lished beyond  doubt,  no  matter  how  large  the  remonstrance, 
the  license  must  issue.  It  would  have  made  no  difference  if  tlie 
remonstrance  had  been  signed  by  every  man,  woman,  and  child 


264  THE    LIQUOR  LAWS   OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

in  Darby,  after  the  necessity  had  been  shown  by  the  minimum 
number  of  signers.  Those  who  signed  the  remonstrance  did 
so  because  they  believe  it  morally  wrong  to  sell  intoxicating 
liquor.  They  may  be  morally  right,  but  the  law  is  against 
them." 

For  the  first  time  in  eight  years  Darby  has  a  liquor  license. 
A  few  minutes  after  the  license  was  granted,  it  was  trans- 
ferred to  another  person,  who  had  but  fifty-four  names  on 
his  petition,  and  who  filed  his  application  a  week  later  than 
required  by  law.      But  that  made  no  difference. 

In  another  instance,  the  court,  being  assured  by  an  at- 
torney that  it  was  the  "wish  of  every  officer  in  this  court- 
house "  that  the  license  in  question  should  be  granted,  said 
he  would  do  so,  and  added,  "While  I  can't  see  that  the 
place  is  necessary  now,  I  hope  it  will  be." 

The  following  is  taken  from  a  press  report  of  the  work 
of  the  last  Delaware  County  license  court :  — 

"Fernwood,  that  never  before  had  a  licensed  house,  will 
now  have  two  (population  619) ;  ]\Iarcus  Hook  will  have  two 
more ;  Clifton  Heights,  one  in  addition  to  two  old  ones  (popu- 
lation of  the  latter  place,  1,820)  ;  and  there  will  be  new  hotels 
(with  bars)  at  Leiperville  and  Tinicum.  Little  Tinicum,  with 
less  than  100  voters  (population  221),  now  has  three  hotels. 
Eight  new  ones  have  been  granted  in  Chester  and  four  in 
South  Chester,^  in  districts  where  there  was  already  one  almost 
in  every  square.  In  Chester  City  there  is  one  drinking-place 
to  every  125  voters,  and  in  the  county  at  large  one  to  every  160, 
and  746  inhabitants  to  each." 

Further  evidence  of  the  close  alliance  between  the  licens- 
ing authority  and  the  liquor  trade  in  Delaware  County  is 
not  needed;  it  is  a  matter  of  notoriety  throughout  the 
State.  The  question  of  granting  as  well  as  of  refusing 
licenses  is  purely  one  of  politics. 

1  On  the  day  that  three  new  saloon  licenses  were  granted  for  South 
Chester,  three  grocery  stores  were  closed  b^'  the  sheriff. 


HARRISBURG.  265 

HARRISBURG. 

The  inland  cities  of  Pennsylvania  present  a  marked 
diversity  of  conditions  with  respect  to  population,  occupa- 
tions, interests,  and  local  sentiment.  This  circumstance 
must  be  taken  closely  into  account  when  the  operation  and 
effects  of  the  liquor  laws  are  inquired  into. 

The  city  of  HarrisLurg  in  some  ways  stands  in  a  class 
by  itself.  As  the  capital  of  the  State,  it  is  subject  to 
peculiar  influences.  Every  two  years  there  is  a  large  influx 
of  strangers,  the  legislators  and  their  followers.  As  the 
seat  of  government,  it  attracts  many  visitors  throughout 
the  year,  and  it  is  the  favorite  place  of  meeting  for  conven- 
tions. All  this  leads  to  an  unusual  degree  of  hotel  life, 
both  high  and  low,  which  exerts  a  direct  influence  on  the 
drink  question. 

Of  the  total  population  of  39,385  (census  of  1890),  only 
2,517,  or  6  per  cent.,  are  European  born;  of  the  latter,  47 
per  cent,  are  Germans,  the  Irish  ranking  next.  Harrisburg 
is  also  the  chief  market  and  base  of  supplies  for  a  large 
rural  population.  Its  manufacturing  interests  are  not  so 
extensive,  but  within  ten  miles  are  towns  given  over  to 
large  steel  and  iron  industries  —  foremost  Steelton  —  easily 
accessible  by  electric  cars.  Were  a  rough  element  wanting, 
it  would  thus  be  supplied  from  outside. 

Neither  Harrisburg  nor  the  county  of  Dauphin  was  under 
local  liquor  laws  when  the  Brooks  law  went  into  effect. 
Both  at  that  time,  and  earlier,  the  licensing  authority 
was  exercised  by  the  judges  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Ses- 
sions. With  no  new  powers  or  limitations  under  the  new 
law,  their  policy  in  granting  licenses  has  not  been  percep- 
tibly modified.  So  far  as  Harrisburg  is  concerned,  they 
follow  the  rule  of  renewing  the  privileges  of  all  former 
licensees  against  whom  no  specific  remonstrance  is  entered 
on  account  of  violations.      With  regard  to  original  applica- 


266  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

tions,  the  necessity  for  more  drinking-places  is  considered 
first.  Some  attention  is  also  paid  to  the  locality  in  which 
the  petitioner  Avould  open  shop.  But  on  the  whole  the 
work  of  the  license  court  is  light.  Although  a  temper- 
ance sentiment  is  by  no  means  lacking  in  the  community, 
there  is  not,  as  in  Philadelphia,  any  systematic  endeavor 
by  outsiders  to  bring  about  a  reduction  of  licenses  by  filing 
remonstrances,  and  by  other  means. 

It  appears  to  be  a  requirement  here  that  the  barrooms 
must  combine  a  restaurant  business  with  the  sale  of  liquor. 
In  consequence,  two  kinds  of  retail  licenses  are  issued,  — 
one  for  taverns  and  one  for  restaurants.  Of  the  former, 
some  are  hotels  only  in  name,  although  presumably  they 
can  provide  the  tavern  accommodations  prescribed  by  the 
law.  The  wholesale  licenses  are  of  the  usual  order. 
Numerically  there  has  been  no  diminution  worth  mention- 
ing in  applications  and  in  licenses  granted  since  1886  — 
two  years  before  the  high  license  became  operative.  In 
the  slight  difference  between  the  number  of  inhabitants  to 
each  license  in  the  last  year  under  low  license  and  in  1894 
(511.05  in  1887,  586.80  in  1894)  it  is  impossible  to  trace 
a  marked  change  as  to  the  extent  of  the  traffic.  But  the 
capacity  of  many  saloons  has  increased.  The  tone  of  the 
saloons  is  said  to  be  better.  The  licensees  observe  the  law 
with  some  care,  for  it  pays  to  observe  it,  the  licenses  being 
more  valuable  than  formerly,  chiefly  because  new  licenses 
are  so  sparingly  granted.  Still  it  is  not  uncommon  to  see 
persons  under  the  influence  of  liquor  being  served  with 
more,  and  the  term  "  minor "  is  very  loosely  interpreted. 
Sunday  selling  is  almost  unknown.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  show  any  valid  reason  why  whatever  improvement  has 
developed  in  the  liquor  trade  in  this  city  should  not  be 
ascribed  as  much  to  other  causes  as  to  the  operations  of  the 
higli  license  laAV.  The  "speak-easies "  are  few,  and  not 
of  a  permanent  character.     Illegal  selling  is  confined  mostly 


DAUPHIN   COUNTY.  2G7 

to  clubs,  of  which  there  are  at  least  fifteen,  the  majority 
of  them  maintained  for  drinking  purposes. 

From  the  statistics  of  arrests  for  drunkenness,  no  satis- 
factory deductions  can  be  drawn.  There  were  four  years 
during  the  period  from  1884  to  1893  in  which  no  police 
reports  were  niade.  The  force  is  entirely  inadequate  to 
the  needs  of  the  city.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  present 
chief  that  drunkenness  has  not  diminished  under  the 
Brooks  law.  It  is  estimated  that  at  least  fifteen  per  cent. 
of  the  persons  held  for  intoxication  are  non-residents, 
mainly  iron  and  steel  Avorkers  coming  in  from  the  sur- 
rounding towns.  The  mayor  acts  as  police  magistrate,  and 
usually  imposes  a  fine  as  penalty  for  drunkenness,  following 
impulse  rather  than  any  well-defined  rule. 

DAUPHIX   COUNTY. 

A  hasty  survey  of  the  county  of  Avhich  Harrisburg  is 
the  centre  does  not  disclose  any  particular  change  wrought 
by  the  high  license  law,  except  that  of  increasing  the 
revenue.  The  rural  districts,  now  as  formerly,  are  well 
supplied  with  licensed  places.  To  cite  some  instances:  in 
Hummelstown  borough  there  is  one  drinking- place  to  495 
inhabitants ;  in  Williamstown  borough,  one  to  581 ;  in 
Lykens  borough,  one  to  408.  None  of  these  places  has 
a  population  of  over  3,000.  In  the  city  of  Steelton  (owned 
almost  exclusively  by  a  corporation,  and  Avith  a  population 
of  about  10,000),  there  is  one  bar  to  770  inhabitants. 

Licensed  places  are  found  in  two  cities,  eleven  boroughs, 
and  ten  townships,  leaving  only  thirteen  small  divisions 
without  license.  For  the  whole  county  the  traffic  is  left 
pretty  nearly  where  it  was  ten  years  ago.  While  the 
saloons  have  not  increased  in  proportion  to  the  population, 
there  is  still  one  license  to  every  652  inhabitants  in  the 
whole  county.  It  is  said  that,  in  some  places,  license 
applications  are  encouraged  on  account  of  the  additional 
revenue  to  the  townships. 


268  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 

PITTSBURGH   AND   ALLEGHENY   COUNTY. 

Allegheny  County  stands  commercially  and  politically  in 
the  same  relation  to  western  Pennsylvania  that  Philadel- 
phia County  holds  to  the  eastern  half  of  the  State;  yet 
in  other  respects  it  presents  some  strong  contrasts.  Its 
development,  or  rather  the  development  of  its  chief  muni- 
cipalities, Pittsburgh  and  Allegheny,  has  been  rapid.  But 
its  industrial  growth  has  not  proved  wholly  a  blessing. 
The  mines  and  mills  have  drawn  hither  a  heterogeneous 
population  containing  elements  difficult  to  absorb.  Of  the 
total  population  of  551,959  in  1890,  153,078,  or  27.73 
per  cent,  were  of  foreign  birth,  and  190,821,  or  34.57  pSr 
cent.,  of  foreign-born  parents.  The  Slavonic  races  are 
strongly  represented.  The  character  of  the  un- Americanized 
element  has  displayed  itself  in  numerous  labor  troubles  of 
which  some,  latterly  the  Homestead  strike,  have  become 
historic. 

In  Pittsburgh  and  Allegheny  the  character  of  the  popu- 
lation has  been  somewhat  modified  within  late  years  by 
the  removal  of  great  manufacturing  plants  to  suburban 
towns  —  Homestead,  Braddock,  McKeesport,  and  others. 
Of  the  total  number  in  Pittsburgh,  according  to  the  census 
of  1890,  238,617,  or  30. 71  per  cent. ,  are  classed  as  foreign- 
born;  10.63  per  cent,  being  German,  8.84  per  cent.  Irish, 
4.25  per  cent.  English,  1.05  per  cent.  Welsh,  .95  per  cent. 
Russian,  1.15  per  cent.  Polish,  and  88,266  classed  as  na- 
tive-born but  of  foreign  parentage,  or  36.99  per  cent,  of 
the  total.  Allegheny  contains  much  the  same  elements  of 
population  (total  in  1890,  105,287),  and  in  similar  propor- 
tions. 

Whatever  its  origin,  the  "  tough  "  element  in  the  muni- 
cipalities of  Allegheny  County,  although  less  conspicuous 
than  formerly,  is  yet  renowned  beyond  the  borders  of 
Pennsylvania.      But  it  is  not  this  alone  which  makes  diffi- 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY.  269 

cult  the  solution  of  important  local  social  problems.  Speak- 
ing particularly  of  the  larger  municipalities,  it  is  but  a 
repetition  of  a  remark  frequently  made  by  the  natives 
themselves,  to  say  that  the  material  prosperity  has  been 
achieved  at  the  cost  of  higher  things.  Money-making  and 
money-getting  have  absorbed  the  activities  of  men  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  pursuits.  Few  of  the  better  class  of 
citizens  have  found  time  for  participation  in  municipal 
affairs,  and  these,  as  well  as  political  matters  generally, 
have  been  left  to  professional  politicians. 

In  the  petition  of  citizens  of  Pittsburgh  drawn  in  Octo- 
ber, 1895,  and  addressed  to  the  "Senate  committee  ap- 
pointed to  investigate  municipal  affairs  in  this  Common- 
wealth," it  was  declared  that  "our  city  government  .  .  . 
is  practically  a  close  corporation,  controlled  and  managed 
in  the  interest  and  for  the  benefit  of  a  coterie  of  politicians, 
the  people  being  recognized  chiefly  for  purposes  of  assess- 
ment." It  was  asserted  that  "the  Department  of  Public 
Safety  arrogates  to  itself  the  authority  to  suspend  the  laws 
of  the  Commonwealth  at  pleasure,  and  to  disregard  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  court;"  that  under  its  policy  "crime  is 
practically  licensed  in  defiance  of  law  and  of  decent  public 
sentiment,"  and  "  intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  in  hundreds  of 
places  throughout  the  city  seven  days  in  the  week  without 
license,  and  disorderly  houses  flourish  unmolested ; "  that 
the  fact  "that  police  officials  have  been  enriched  by  rev- 
enue from  this  source  is  a  matter  of  public  scandal ; "  that 
"this  department  also  assumes  to  control  the  elections 
through  the  machinery  of  the  police  and  fire  departments," 
the  members  of  which  "  dare  not  exercise  the  right  of  free 
speech  and  free  ballot,  and  are  bound  to  carry  out  the 
behests  of  their  superiors  under  penalty  of  dismissal ;  that 
"  the  payment  of  political  assessments,  regardless  of  circum- 
etances,  is  compulsory  under  the  same  penalty." 

The  authors  of    this  vigorous   denouncement   were    not 


270  THE   LIQUOK   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

challenged  to  prove  their  assertions,  nor  did  it  meet  con- 
tradiction. The  discredit  for  the  management  of  municipal 
affairs  complained  of  seems  pretty  equally  divided  between 
the  two  great  political  parties.  The  balance  of  power  is 
held  by  the  Eepublicans,  but  the  Democrats  are  pacified  by 
obtaining  a  share  of  the  offices.  The  mayoralty  is  usually 
theirs,  while  the  heads  of  the  departments,  as  Avell  as  the 
legislative  branch,  are  from  the  other  party.  Thus  friction 
within  the  city  government,  while  not  unknown,  is  pre- 
vented from  growing  into  disruption  by  mutual  interests. 

So  long  as  the  State  Constitution  gave  permission,  it  was 
a  matter  of  course  that  Allegheny  County,  which  contained 
an  urban  population  only  second  to  that  of  Philadelphia, 
should  be  regarded  with  special  solicitude  by  the  promot- 
ers of  local  laws.  The  uncompromising  Sabbatarians  and 
the  liquor-dealers  appear  to  have  taken  turns  in  securing 
enactments  to  meet  their  requirements.  Both  won  signal 
success.  But  while  the  former  were  able,  among  other 
things,  to  put  on  the  statute-books  strict  provisions  against 
Sunday  liquor-selling,  the  latter  made  sure  that  the  law 
should  remain  inoperative  by  getting  a  firm  grip,  not  only 
on  those  concerned  with  the  enforcement  of  them,  but  on 
the  licensing  authorities.  At  the  instance  of  the  liquor- 
dealers  the  power  to  grant  licenses  had  been  taken  from 
the  judiciary  of  Allegheny  County  and  given  to  certain 
commissioners.  As  in  Philadelphia,  these  commissioners 
served  with  little  credit.  The  public  opprobrium  which 
they  merited  and  received  was  in  turn  visited  upon  their 
successors,  the  county  commissioners.  The  official  con- 
duct of  the  latter  caused  scandal.  The  next  and  last  piece 
of  special  liquor  legislation  was  comprehensive,  in  fact,  a 
complete  new  law,  dating  from  April  10,  1872.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  principal  features  of  this  measure  will  servo  to 
show  by  whose  hands  it  was  fashioned,  and  that  its  actual 
results  were  anticipated. 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY.  271 

The  Allegheny  County  liquor  law  of  1872  repealed  all 
previous  special  acts.  The  granting  of  licenses  was  vested 
in  the  county  treasurer,  who  was  allowed  to  charge  one 
dollar  for  each  license  issued.  Only  keepers  of  hotels, 
taverns,  inns,  and  eating-houses  could  engage  in  a  retail 
liquor  business.  The  annual  license  fee  was  fixed  at  $300 
in  cities  and  boroughs,  and  $100  in  townships.  For  each 
$1,000  worth  of  liquor  sold  above  the  sum  of  $3,000  in 
one  year,  an  extra  fee  of  $50  was  to  be  charged,  the  licensee 
being  required  to  make  a  sworn  statement  as  to  the  volume 
of  his  business.  Eating-houses  could  be  licensed  to  sell 
malt  liquors  only  for  a  fee  of  $100.  In  the  country  dis- 
tricts a  special  malt  and  wine  license  could  be  issued,  fee 
$50.  Retail  dealers  were  prohibited  from  selling  in  quanti- 
ties exceeding  one  quart,  sales  in  excess  of  this  quantity 
being  accounted  wholesale.  The  wholesale  business  was 
divided  into  nine  classes,  and  fees  fixed  in  proportion  to 
the  estimated  sales :  a  dealer  of  the  first  class,  supposed  to 
sell  to  the  value  of  $300,000  or  more  annually,  to  pay  a 
fee  of  $1,000;  a  dealer  of  the  ninth  class,  selling  below 
$25,000,  a  fee  of  $200.  Sales  of  wine  and  cider  at  whole- 
sale were  permitted  without  license.  Manufacturers  and 
producers  of  domestic  wines  and  bottlers  of  cider  and  malt 
liquors,  not  otherwise  engaged  in  the  sale  of  intoxicants, 
or  keeping  restaurants  or  places  of  amusement,  were  per- 
mitted to  sell  malt  drinks  by  the  bottle  and  domestic  wine 
and  cider  by  the  gallon,  not  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises, 
without  a  license.  Sales  of  liquor  to  minors,  apprentices, 
and  intemperate  persons  Avere  prohibited,  under  penalty  of 
fine  of  $100  and  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six  months. 
Bars  were  asked  to  be  closed  on  Sundays,  and  at  midnight 
the  rest  of  the  week.  Liquor-selling  in  violation  of  this 
law  was  made  punishable  by  fine  of  from  $50  to  $200, 
and  costs  for  the  first  offense,  and  for  subsequent  convic- 
tions, confinement  in  the  workhouse  for  from  two  to  six 


272  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

months,  in  addition.  The  conviction  of  a  licensee  rendered 
liis  license  void,  and  debarred  him  from  procuring  another 
for  a  year.  Constables  were  required  to  report  unlicensed 
places  and  violations  of  this  act.  The  license  moneys  were 
to  go,  one  fourth  to  the  State,  and  three  fourths  to  the 
county,  to  meet  the  expenses  incident  to  granting  licenses 
and  in  building  the  Allegheny  County  workhouse. 

On  the  date  of  the  approval  of  this  law,  ten  townships 
in  the  county  were  authorized  by  the  legislature  to  vote 
on  the  question  of  granting  licenses. 

Whatever  merit  lay  in  the  new  law,  it  was  not  seriously 
intended  to  execute  it.  The  machinery  for  this  purpose 
was  lacking.  But  little  discretion  could  be  exercised  by 
the  county  treasurer.  He  had  no  power  to  revoke  li- 
censes, nor  could  he  direct  any  officials  to  enforce  the  law. 
His  work  was  largely  of  a  routine  character.  Moreover, 
he  had  a  pecuniary  interest  in  the  nvimber  of  licenses 
granted.  He  rarely  found  occasion  to  deny  applications. 
Whosoever  could  pay  the  stipulated  fee,  and  give  the 
necessary  security,  got  a  license.  Political  considerations 
also  kept  this  official  from  limiting  the  saloons.  Both 
political  parties  were  eager  to  propitiate  the  liquor  ele- 
ment, for  it  controlled,  or  rather  by  it  were  controlled,  the 
elections.  The  aspiring  office-holder  soon  recognized  the 
expediency  of  securing  for  the  dealer  a  full  measure  of  non- 
interference, and  contributing  liberally  to  his  coffers  in 
return  for  political  service.  "This  was  a  fearful  drain  on 
the  pockets  of  the  politicians,"  says  one  who  has  had  long 
experience  in  public  life. 

Notwithstanding  the  ease  with  which  a  license  could  be 
obtained,  hundreds  scorned  to  seek  legal  protection,  and 
sold  without  pretense  of  concealment.  So  commonly  was 
this  done,  that  the  county  found  it  profitable  to  employ  a 
man  on  salary  to  collect  evidence  against  illegal  dealers  and 
thus  induce  them  to  apply  for  license.     This  was  purely  a 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY,  273 

business  matter,  and  had  no  view  to  the  vindication  of  law 
and  order.  A  beer  license,  which  could  be  made  to  cover 
the  whole  traffic,  did  not  cost  much,  and  to  pay  for  it 
saved  the  expense  of  going  to  court.  The  licensed  dealers 
paid  no  heed  to  the  restrictive  provisions  of  their  own  law. 
The  few  attempts  to  bring  them  to  justice  ended  inglori- 
ously  almost  without  exception,  in  spite  of  overwhelming 
evidence  against  them. 

In  the  last  year  before  the  Brooks  law  went  into  effect, 
about  3,000  liquor  licenses  were  granted  in  Allegheny 
County,  and  about  1,500  of  these  were  in  Pittsburgh.  In 
round  numbers  there  were  164  inhabitants  to  each  license 
in  the  whole  county,  and  142  in  Pittsburgh.  The  magni- 
tude of  the  unlicensed  traffic  cannot  be  estimated.  All 
who  can  speak  authoritatively  on  the  subject  agree  that 
it  was  enormous. 

However,  it  must  not  be  understood  that  the  whole 
community  was  disposed  to  let  the  liquor  element  have 
full  sway.  During  the  two  and  a  half  years  preceding  the 
enactment  of  the  Brooks  law,  various  Law  and  Order 
Leagues  were  formed  in  Pittsburgh.  Confined  at  first  to 
different  wards,  their  members  have  always  expended  their 
energy  in  guarding  against  violations  of  Sunday  laws.  In 
1888  the  Eleventh  Ward  Law  and  Order  League  brought 
thirty-two  cases  against  saloon-keepers  for  Sunday  selling, 
and  secured  many  convictions.  Another  league,  founded 
in  1886  by  citizens  of  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth 
wards,  seemed  more  bent  on  stopping  the  Sunday  sales  of 
cigars  than  of  intoxicants;  seventeen  were  prosecuted  for 
the  former  offense  against  three  for  the  latter.  A  third 
league,  formed  the  same  year,  had  j)repared  twenty  liquor 
cases  for  the  March  term  of  court  (1887);  but  "owing  to 
the  composition  of  the  grand  jury  it  was  thought  advisable 
to  present  only  two  test  cases,  in  one  of  which  three  mem- 
bers of  the  league,   in  addition  to  the  agents  employed, 


274  THE    LIQUOK   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

testified.  The  cases  were  twice  heard  at  length  by  the 
grand  jury,  and  then  ignored.  Hence  the  other  suits  were 
not  entered." 

Undaunted  by  their  meagre  success,  the  members  of 
these  organizations  resolved  to  form  a  league  embracing  the 
entire  city.  They  were  doubtless  cheered  on  in  their 
efforts  by  the  knowledge  that  they  would  soon  receive  a 
powerful  ally  in  the  Brooks  law,  for  its  final  passage  was 
no  longer  a  matter  of  doubt.  A  reference  to  the  work  of 
this  league,  and  of  the  events  accompanying  it,  will  throw 
some  light  on  the  state  of  the  liquor  traffic  during  the  last 
months  of  the  old  regime.  It  matters  not  that  in  the 
judgment  of  some  sober-minded  men  the  league  at  times 
displayed  a  zeal  not  dictated  by  wisdom.  The  springing 
up  of  such  an  association  is  a  telling  commentary  on  the 
conduct  of  the  sworn  officials.  For  some  weeks  after  its 
formation  the  only  work  that  could  be  done  on  liquor  cases 
was  to  collect  evidence  against  violators  of  the  law.  Legal 
complications  had  arisen.  The  Brooks  law  was  approved 
May  13,  1887,  and  the  questions  arose,  "Did  it  go  into 
effect  on  that  date,  or  on  June  30,  or  not  until  May  1, 
1888?  And  was  it  constitutional,  and,  if  so,  did  it 
apply  to  Allegheny  County  1  "  Until  it  was  known  upon 
which  law  suits  should  be  based,  prosecutions  could  not 
be  brought.  The  decision  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas 
to  grant  licenses  under  the  new  act  opened  the  way  to  an 
attack  at  least  on  the  Sunday  sellers.  Strenuous  opposi- 
tion was  encountered  from  two  quarters:  the  prosecuting 
attorney  for  the  State  made  the  trial  of  liquor  cases  as  dif- 
ficult as  possible,  and  the  grand  jury  refused  to  consider 
the  most  positive  evidence. 

A  few  days  after  the  drawing  of  the  first  grand  jury 
with  which  the  league  had  to  deal,  one  of  the  jury  com- 
missioners declared,  "We  have  got  this  grand  jury  fixed." 
Suljsequent  events  showed  that  he  was  right.     Not  a  sin- 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY.  275 

gle  true  bill  was  returned  against  illegal  liquor-dealers. 
It  made  no  difference  that  some  unwilling  constables  had 
furnished  evidence,  and  that  the  witnesses  were  of  respec- 
tability. To  crown  their  work,  the  jury  in  each  case  im- 
posed the  costs  on  the  prosecution,  even  in  one  where  the 
accused  person  was  unknown  to  the  agent  of  the  league. 
The  actions  of  this  grand  jury  are  best  described  in  the 
words  of  one  of  its  members  which  reached  public  print :  — 

" '  I  was  one  day  acting  foreman  of  the  last  grand  jury.  We 
were  given  31  informatious  from  the  Law  and  Order  League 
against  saloon-keepers  and  cigar-dealers.    Of  the  31  we  ignored 

29.     I  was  actually  afraid  to  look  up  at  Judge for  fear  I 

would  blush.  I  tell  you,  you  could  not  pick  out  24  other  men 
in  the  county  who  would  have  had  the  gall  to  do  as  we  did  in 
those  and  other  cases.' 

"  '  How  about  the  costs  ? '  asked  one  of  the  auditors. 

" '  Put  every  d — d  cent  of  them  on '  (agent  of  the  Law 

and  Order  League)  ;  '  he  will  have  to  pay  or  go  to  jail.'  " 

At  the  next  term  of  court,  two  test  cases  were  submitted 
after  the  grand  jury  had  been  specially  charged  by  the  pre- 
siding judge  as  to  its  duties.  Both  cases  were  ignored. 
The  court  reversed  the  finding  and  sent  the  cases  to  the 
grand  jury  of  the  March  term,  1888.  The  judge  pointedly 
instructed  the  jurors,  Avarning  them  against  the  mistakes 
of  their  predecessors.  The  two  cases  were  submitted  to 
them  the  next  day  and  again  ignored,  while  the  costs  were 
imposed  on  the  prosecution.  One  member  of  this  jury 
had  been  convicted  three  times  of  violations  of  the  liquor 
law;  another  had  been  fined  once  for  selling  liquor  on 
Sunday;  a  third  was  bartender  for  a  dealer  who  had  twice 
been  convicted  of  selling  liquor  on  Sunday ;  a  fourth  was 
on  the  bail  bond  of  the  saloon-keeper  whose  case  was  con- 
sidered by  the  grand  jury  and  ignored. 

Meanwhile  the  first  license  court  had  completed  its 
work,  which,  however,  was  only  of  a  preliminary  nature. 


276  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

The  licenses  which  it  granted  were  to  run  only  for  half 
a  year.  Yet  the  fact  that  171  applications  out  of  240  (in 
the  whole  county)  had  heen  denied,  made  the  liquor-deal- 
ers feel  that  they  were  in  dire  straits.  The  political  cam- 
paign of  the  autumn  of  1887  gave  them  hope  of  retrieving 
their  waning  power.  The  election  of  a  judge  to  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  was  pending.  Backed  by  the  Democratic 
party,  the  liquor  faction  supported  a  candidate  who  was 
pledged  to  interpret  the  law  from  the  saloon  point  of  view. 
The  literature  of  the  campaign  justifies  this  statement. 
This  is  from  a  handbill  circulated  on  the  eve  of  the  elec- 
tion :  — 

"Vote  for  the  repeal  of  obnoxious  laws!     Vote  for  a  free 
Sabbath  and  free  whiskey !     Vote  for  Judge !  " 

And  this  from  a  confidential  circular :  — 

"  The  action  of  the  last  license  court  is  in  itself  a  lesson 
worth  all  that  can  be  said  on  the  subject ;  and  the  impertinence 

and  opprobrium  cast  upon  a  legitimate  business  by  Judges 

and will  bear  fruit,  the  extent  of  which  will  make  mani- 
fest the  indignation  of  an  outraged  community.     The  terrific 

cleaning  out  which  Judge promises  for  next  May  leaves 

no  other  course  open  but  one  of  inveterate  hostility ;  and  the 
men  who  remain  neutral,  depending  upon  the  eloquence  of  a 
lawyer  or  the  justice  of  this  honorable  crank,  will  merit  uni- 
versal contempt." 

The  "personal  liberty  "  argument  did  not  win  the  day. 

Shortly  after  the  election,  the  Supreme  Court  decided 
that  the  Allegheny  County  liquor  laAV  was  repealed,  and 
the  act  of  1855  authorizing  civil  suits  for  penalties  against 
Sunday  liquor-sellers  reinstated.  Under  the  latter  act, 
the  league  had  brought  its  suits,  and  from  June  12,  1887, 
to  March  18,  1888,  it  secured  convictions  in  539  cases  for 
Sunday  liquor-selling,  carrying  a  penalty  in  fines  aggregat- 
ing $27,000  (about  $50  and  costs  in  each  case). 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY.  277 


THE    LICENSE    COURT. 


The  extent  and  character  of  the  liquor  power  in  Alle- 
gheny County  had  not  intimidated  the  first  license  court. 
In  1888  the  law  became  fully  operative.  The  court  sat 
from  March  19  until  May  1.  Its  determination  to  weed 
out  the  saloons  was  evident  from  the  outset.  Maps  were 
prepared  showing  the  location  of  each  place  applying  for 
license  in  the  first  eighteen  wards  of  Pittsburgh,  and  the 
recent  career  of  every  applicant  was  closely  inquired  into. 
Men  who  appeared  to  have  forgotten  their  own  history 
were  confronted  with  a  record  of  their  misdemeanors.  For 
instance,  witnesses  were  on  hand  to  prove  that  fifteen 
applicants  in  one  ward  had  been  in  the  habit  of  selling 
distilled  liquors  on  beer  licenses. 

The  mass  of  remonstrances,  prepared  on  private  initia- 
tive, materially  lessened  the  labor  of  the  court.  But  the 
"  terrific  cleaning  out "  of  the  saloons,  which  had  been 
promised  and  was  referred  to  with  such  bitterness  during 
the  campaign  of  the  preceding  year,  was  mainly  the  work 
of  one  judge.  Regardless  of  malignant  abuse,  threats  of 
personal  violence,  and  the  prospect  of  losing  his  seat  on 
the  bench,  he  had  from  the  first  set  himself  the  task  of 
reducing  the  number  of  drinking-houses  to  the  lowest  lim- 
its. He  went  to  an  extreme  where  no  other  judge  dared 
to  follow.      This  was  especially  the  case  in  1889. 

The  general  attitude  of  the  judges  on  the  license  ques- 
tion should  be  noted.  Where  nine  men  take  turns  in  the 
license  court,  a  wholly  consistent  policy  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. In  the  absence  of  statutory  limitations,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  court  has  but  one  rule  to  follow  in  determining 
the  number  of  places  to  be  licensed  —  the  necessity  of  the 
place  for  the  accommodation  of  the  public.  How  to  inter- 
pret this  phrase  is  a  matter  of  individual  opinion  deter- 
mined by  liberal  or  stringent  views  of  the  drink  question 


278  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

in  general.  Where  the  latter  prevail  in  marked  degree,  a 
somewhat  arbitrary  construction  of  the  law  is  natural. 
The  policy  of  the  Allegheny  County  license  court  has  been 
shaped  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  act  of  the  first  pre- 
siding judge  —  a  man  of  strong  prohibitory  convictions. 
While  his  impregnability  to  every  outside  influence  and 
undisputed  honesty  have  won  for  him  the  respect  of  the 
better  class  of  liquor-dealers,  he  has  been  led  to  go  farther 
than  the  law,  as  generally  accepted,  intends.  For  exam- 
ple, the  refusal  of  a  license  to  an  applicant  admitting 
having  sold  liquor  to  women,  or  to  be  carried  away  in 
buckets,  or  because  he  provides  free  lunches,  is  without 
warrant  in  law.  On  the  other  hand,  his  rigid  examina- 
tion of  every  applicant,  no  matter  if  already  a  licensee, 
his  refusal  to  accept  wholesale  dealers,  brewers,  policemen, 
and  city  officials  as  bondsmen,  and  his  endeavor  to  prevent 
liquor-selling  near  the  mills  have,  more  than  anything  else, 
helped  to  put  the  saloons  on  a  law-abiding  footing.  While, 
chiefly  through  the  work  of  this  one  man,  the  Allegheny 
license  court  has  won  a  reputation  of  dealing  severely  with 
the  liquor  men,  there  are  conspicuous  instances  of  the 
appeal  to  influence  in  the  license  court. 

Although  no  one  would  venture  to  suggest  that  judges 
have  laid  themselves  open  to  the  charge  of  corruption,  it 
is  equally  certain  that,  if  an  applicant  comes  armed  with 
strong  political  indorsements,  some  of  them  will  not  in- 
quire minutely  into  his  antecedents.  So  long  as  the  judi- 
ciary remains  elective,  it  is  but  human  nature  that  judges, 
even  if  they  are  not  all  politicians,  should  remember  the 
political  service  of  others  when  sitting  in  the  license  court, 
l^ut  nothing  seems  better  calculated  to  inspire  the  appli- 
cants for  license  with  the  idea  that  a  "pull"  is  necessary 
than  the  fact  that  some  judges  allow  their  sons  or  partners 
to  appear  before  them  in  liquor  cases.  Whatever  else 
may  be  said  about  this  practice,  it  is  one  of  long  standing. 


ALLEGHENY  COUNTY.  279 

It  has  proved  very  profitable  to  those  engaged  in  it,  for 
they  are  sure  to  retain  the  same  clients  from  year  to  year. 
And  the  fee  is  of  liberal  size  —  $250  for  each  license  — 
according  to  the  statement  of  some  dealers. 

However  true  it  may  be  that  the  license  court  has  been 
free  from  public  scandal,  and  that  as  a  rule  the  better  class 
of  applicants  have  been  selected,  the  wielding  of  the  licens- 
ing power  has  not  added  dignity  to  the  bench.  The 
feeling  that  "influence"  is  needed  in  license  cases,  which 
prevails  so  strongly  among  liquor-dealers,  springs  in  lar^ 
part  from  two  sources :  the  imprudence  of  some  judges  and 
the  unprincipled  actions  of  members  of  the  bar. 

License  transfers  are  not  permitted  except  in  case  of  the 
death  of  the  licensee.  Formerly,  when  saloons  were  sold 
out  by  the  sheriff,  the  license  was  purchasable  also. 

UNDER    THE    BROOKS    LAW. 

One  of  the  effects  of  the  new  regime  has  been  to  subdue 
the  dealers.  They  know  themselves  to  be  on  sufferance, 
and  this  has  curtailed  their  political  power.  "While  in 
Philadelphia  the  applicant  for  a  license  finds  that  he  has 
a  hold  on  politicians,  office-holders,  and  others  in  influen- 
tial positions,  who  readily  indorse  his  papers  or  sign  his 
bond,  this  is  not  the  case  in  Pittsburgh;  at  any  rate,  not 
in  like  degree.  Naturally  a  number  of  dealers,  if  not 
actively  engaged  in  municipal  affairs,  still  possess  consider- 
able influence  in  their  respective  wards.  Tliese  the  politi- 
cians would  be  loath  to  off'end;  and  men  in  mercantile  life 
Avho  seek  their  custom  are  ever  ready  to  testify  to  their 
good  character.  Put  it  is  now  more  frequently  the  politi- 
cian who  makes  the  small  dealer  tremble  by  intimating 
that  in  return  for  certain  services  he  will  see  him  safely 
through  the  dreaded  license  courts,  usually  but  an  empty 
promise.  The  old-time  arrogance  of  the  liquor  element 
has  disappeared,   but  it  remains  a  factor  in  politics,  both 


280  THE   LIQUOR    LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

directly  and  indirectly:   it  uses  every  means  to  strengthen 
itself,  and  is  used  by  others. 

The  care  bestowed  on  the  selection  of  applicants  for 
license  has  not  resulted  in  excluding  brewers  and  wholesale 
dealers  from  the  control  of  numerous  retail  shops.  One 
of  the  best  authorities  on  the  subject  asserts  that  in  a  cer- 
tain district  of  Pittsburgh  four  fifths  of  the  saloons  are 
practically  owned  by  brewers  and  wholesale  dealers.  In- 
stances were  related  of  men  without  capital  being  advanced 
Sufficient  money  by  their  powerful  brethren  to  fit  up  bar- 
rooms, buy  stock,  and  pay  the  license  fee  of  $1,000. 

Considering  how  poorly  the  retail  shops  are  policed,  it 
is  rather  surprising  that  they  keep  so  well  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  law.  Particularly  in  Pittsburgh  and  Allegheny, 
the  police  officials  do  not  allow  themselves  any  trouble  on 
account  of  the  saloons;  much  less  do  the  constables.  Yet 
the  places  are  quite  orderly.  Barroom  brawls  and  stab- 
bing affrays  are  rare.  The  closing  hours,  set  at  twelve 
o'clock  by  a  city  ordinance,  are  observed  with  some  degree 
of  punctuality;  and  Sunday  selling  is  now  almost  un- 
known. No  doubt  a  goodly  number  of  dealers  desire  to 
keep  decent  places.  Others  are  impelled  to  exercise  some 
care  by  fears  of  the  license  court.  Police  officials  would 
not  inform  against  them,  but  private  persons  might.  Less 
conspicuous  offenses,  such  as  selling  to  intemperates  and 
minors,  are,  however,  not  uncommon. 

Of  the  142  wholesale  dealers  in  the  county,  forty-nine 
do  not  pay  the  United  States  special  tax  as  such;  that  is, 
the  tax  required  from  all  who  sell  liquor  in  quantities  of 
five  gallons  or  more.  Consequently  these  forty-nine  are 
not  engaged  in  a  bona  fide  wholesale  business,  but  sell 
mostly  by  the  quart,  although  not  for  consumption  on  tlie 
premises.  Some  of  them  offer  the  vilest  compounds  under 
the  name  of  "  whiskey  "  as  low  as  fifteen  cents  per  quart ! 

A  few  bottlers  are  known  to  do  an  illegitimate  business, 


ALLEGHENY   COUNTY.  281 

inasmuch  as  they  sell  goods  from  delivery  wagons  without 
previous  order. 

Prior  to  the  Brooks  law  the  illegal  dealers  flourished 
almost  unmolested.  Efforts  Avere  made  to  have  the  police 
suppress  this  nuisance  when  the  new  act  became  operative, 
but  in  vain. 

In  the  police  report  for  1889  it  was  asserted  that  during 
the  first  year  of  the  Brooks  law  there  was  "little  or  no 
illegal  selling."  With  some  truth  the  police  referred  to 
the  unparalleled  reduction  of  licenses  in  1889  as  the  cause 
of  many  "  speak-easies  "  springing  up,  "  lured  on  by  finan- 
cial success;  their  houses  are  open  seven  days  in  the 
week."  Of  such  saloons,  792,  according  to  the  official  re- 
port, were  supposed  to  exist  in  the  city.  From  the  police 
report  for  1890  one  learns  that  there  has  been  compara- 
tively little  trouble  with  "speak-easies,"  "because  of  re- 
lentless prosecution,  and  because  of  a  large  increase  in  the 
number  of  licenses  granted."  In  1891  it  is  stated  that 
the  "admirable  distribution  of  licenses  by  the  court"  had 
done  much  to  eradicate  the  illegal  traffic,  for  which  there 
was  now  no  occasion.  Later  reports  are  silent  on  this 
subject,  but  privately  it  is  asserted  that  the  illicit  traffic 
has  been  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

The  truth  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  the  police,  partly, 
do  not  take  the  trouble  to  enforce  the  law  and,  partly,  are 
too  much  interested  in  the  illicit  traffic  to  suppress  it. 
Yet  they  found  themselves  compelled  in  1894  to  make  103 
arrests  for  selling  liquor  on  Sunday  and  without  license. 
So  formidable  has  the  competition  of  illegal  dealers  grown, 
that  the  retailers  have  taken  steps  to  protect  themselves 
against  it.  They  now  employ  an  agent,  who  last  year  prose- 
cuted about  seventy-five  cases. 

The  constables,  who  are  supposed  to  make  sworn  returns 
to  the  court,  three  or  four  times  a  year,  of  the  unlicensed 
places,   cannot  be  made  to  perform  this  duty  faithfully. 


282  THE   LIQUOE   LAWS  OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

Their  office  is  elective,  and  could  not  be  held  continuously 
by  men  who  made  earnest  war  on  the  illegal  dealers.  In 
the  words  of  a  prominent  county  official,  "They  take  toll 
from  violators  of  the  law," 

"From  the  number  of  [ '  speak-easies  ']  that  those  faith- 
ful officials  [the  constables]  do  not  return,"  said  a  Pitts- 
burgh paper  recently,  "we  may  judge  how  many  flourish 
in  secret." 

The  changed  relations  of  the  liquor-selling  class  to  the 
community  are  constantly  witnessed  in  the  criminal  courts. 
Grand  juries  no  longer  ignore  cases  with  the  old-time 
effrontery.  The  fact  that  they  still  refuse  to  return  true 
bills  in  a  large  percentage  of  cases  presented  may  be  due 
to  insufficient  evidence.  The  make-up  of  the  petit  juries 
rests  largely  with  the  prosecuting  officers,  who  state  that 
they  experience  but  little  difficulty  in  securing  convic- 
tions. Statistics,  however,  show  that  an  uncommonly 
large  percentage  of  trials  result  in  acquittals  (in  1893, 
57.14  per  cent.,  in  1894,  55.69).  There  is  still  not  in- 
frequently occasion  for  judges  to  address  juries  in  the  lan- 
guage recently  employed  by  a  judge  in  Allegheny  County, 
when  the  jury  had  refused  to  consider  the  most  positive 
evidence  in  a  liquor  case. 

"  Gentlemen,  I  am  surprised.  I  simply  say  that  you  are 
either  unable  to  comprehend  evidence,  or  have  willfully  vio- 
lated your  oaths."     ("  Post  Dispatch,"  September  18,  1895.) 

A  strange  phase  of  the  trial  of  liquor  cases  illustrating 
the  peculiar  power  of  the  police  is  the  fact  that  convictions 
are  obtained  in  nearly  all  cases  presented  by  them. 

Severe  penalties  are  imposed  —  three  to  six  months  im- 
prisonment in  the  workhouse  and  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
$500.  There  is  usually  a  double  sentence,  one  for  selling 
liquor  without  license,  and  the  other  for  selling  on  Sunday. 
The  latter  is  frequently  permitted  to  run  concurrent  with 
the  former. 


LUZERNE   COUNTY.  283 

The  fines  are  never  collected,  owing,  it  is  said,  to  the 
poverty  of  the  defendants;  but  this  is  not  the  whole  truth. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  sentences  are  unduly  sus- 
pended. 

By  the  trade,  Pittsburgh  is  designated  as  a  "whiskey 
town ; "  that  is,  one  where  distilled  liquors  are  preferred  to 
beer  by  a  large  portion  of  the  inhabitants.  Among  the 
thousands  of  niillworkers  are  many  heavy  whiskey  drink- 
ers. On  the  whole,  drunkenness  is  very  evident.  The 
impression  prevails  that  it  has  decreased  under  the  Brooks 
law.  If  this  be  true,  it  can  hardly  be  attributable  to  the 
operation  of  the  law,  for  hundreds  of  "  speak-easies  "  have 
always  flourished,  and  under  official  protection;  the  fewer 
the  saloons  the  more  numerous  have  been  the  illegal  shops. 

The  available  statistics  of  arrests  carry  us  no  farther  back 
than  to  1889.  In  that  year  the  police  department  was 
reorganized  under  the  new  city  charter. 

These  show  arrests  for  drunkenness  in  1889,  22.66  per 
1,000  inhabitants;  in  1890,  28.39;  1891,  27.99;  1892, 
20.30;  1893,  15.69;  1894,  11.47.  An  intoxicated  per- 
son is  not  arrested  unless  disorderly  or  utterly  helpless. 
Men  "  staggering  drunk  "  are  permitted  to  wander  about  in 
the  principal  streets. 

The  arrests  for  drunkenness  have  decreased  in  face  of  an 
increase  in  licensed  houses.  This  seemingly  abnormal 
condition  the  police  attribute  to  "hard  times."  Some 
good  men  insist  that  the  total  abstinence  sentiment  is  mak- 
ing rapid  gains  in  the  community.  If  this  be  true,  it  will 
nevertheless  be  a  long  time  before  its  effects  will  be  visible 
in  the  police  dockets. 

LUZERNE   COUNTY   AND  AVILKES  BARRE. 

The  immense  coal  -  mining  industry  of  northeastern 
Pennsylvania  has  attracted  a  large  European  immigration 
of  unsocial  character.      The  least  civilized  of  Hungarians, 


284  THE   LIQUOR  LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

Poles,  Italians,  Irish,  and  other  nationalities  have  come 
and  made  their  homes  among  the  mines.  Of  late  years 
the  decreased  output  of  coal,  low  Avages,  and  scarcity  of 
employment  have  checked  the  foreign  influx  of  laborers, 
and  induced  not  a  few  to  leave  the  county.  Those  who 
remain,  however,  live  on  as  at  first,  isolating  themselves 
according  to  their  nationality,  aliens  by  choice,  and  frowned 
upon  because  of  their  illiteracy,  disregard  for  the  law,  and 
intemperate  habits. 

But  the  justice  of  putting  all  the  blame  for  social  disor- 
ders on  their  shoulders,  as  is  habitually  done,  may  rightly 
be  challenged.  Their  general  social,  no  less  than  their  in- 
dustrial condition,  is  not  entirely  of  their  own  making. 
Only  one  class  of  men  —  the  politicians  —  display  any  par- 
ticular solicitude  for  them.  The  process  of  endowing  illit- 
erate Hungarians  with  citizenship  is  a  simple  one  where 
there  is  a  strong  one-party  rule.  It  involves  neither  edu- 
cation nor  moral  elevation.  The  effect  of  a  large  ignorant 
vote  on  the  selection  of  officials  is  a  well-worn  story,  and 
so  is  the  dread  of  politicians  of  alienating  the  same  vote 
by  measures  of  reform,  for  which  it  may  not  be  ripe,  and 
toward  which  it  feels  an  innate  repugnance.  The  presence 
of  a  large  mining  population  and  the  corruption  of  the 
suffrage  have  rendered  the  enforcement  of  liquor  laws, 
among  others,  unusually  difficult. 

As  in  the  rest  of  the  State,  with  the  exception  of  Phila- 
delphia and  Allegheny  counties,  the  granting  of  licenses 
has  always  been  a  function  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Ses- 
sions. Special  laws  have  never  affected  the  county  as  a 
whole  for  any  length  of  time.  Under  the  local  option  law 
of  1872,  prohibition  obtained  in  a  few  places,  but  it  did 
not  produce  any  lasting  effects. 

The  judges  have  always  observed  a  policy  of  extreme 
leniency  toward  the  liquor  element.  The  ground  taken  is 
that  they  must  act  on  licenses  in  their  judicial  capacity 


LUZERNE   COUNTY,  285 

only;  that  is,  exclusively  on  the  evidence  produced  in 
court.  Thus,  while  a  judge  may  have  personal  knowledge 
of  the  unfitness  of  a  certain  applicant,  he  takes  cognizance 
only  of  the  evidence  produced  in  court  by  others.  One 
motive  for  taking  this  stand  is  undeniably  the  powerful 
influence  of  the  liquor  element.  A  judge  with  a  record 
of  having  attacked  the  liquor-dealers  could  never  gain  a 
majority  of  his  party's  votes  in  the  county.  The  easily 
led  foreign  element  would  be  turned  against  him  —  he 
would  be  dead,  politically.  The  independent  public  senti- 
ment is  not  strong  enough  to  sustain  a  vigorous  policy  on 
the  part  of  the  court. 

Periodically  a  long  array  of  remonstrances  is  presented 
to  the  judges,  of  which  some  notice  is  taken.  Fluctua- 
tions in  the  number  of  licenses  granted  is  partly  due  to 
this  cause.  Of  late,  remonstrances  rarely  come  up  for  con- 
sideration. Private  persons  have  grown  tired  of  the  un- 
grateful task  of  presenting  them,  and  the  officials  will  not 
act.  Ability  to  pay  the  fee  and  give  bonds  is  the  princi- 
pal concern  of  the  applicant.  The  would-be  dealers  need 
not  go  begging  for  good  names  to  affix  to  their  petitions 
and  other  papers.  "Men  don't  like  to  refuse  such  favors," 
said  a  prominent  county  official.  As  the  court  does  not 
subject  the  names  of  signers  to  close  scrutiny,  the  latter 
need  not  hesitate  to  testify  on  paper  to  the  "good  charac- 
ter "  of  the  applicant,  and  to  the  necessity  of  the  place  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  public. 

Since  even  remonstrances  are  so  rare,  it  seldom  happens 
that  judges  are  besought  to  revoke  a  license.  The  rule  is, 
once  a  licensee  always  a  licensee,  unless  financial  troubles 
should  call  for  the  services  of  the  sheriff. 

Under  the  low  license  system,  with  a  fee  of  $50,  which 
was  displaced  by  the  Brooks  law,  the  number  of  legalized 
shops  was  greater  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  the 
county  than  now.      On  the  other  hand,  the  "speak-easy" 


286  THE   LIQUOR   LAWS   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

had  not  become  a  fixed  institution.  But  before  consider- 
ing the  general  operations  of  the  present  law,  some  particu- 
lars should  be  given  of  its  workings  in  the  chief  city  and 
county  seat  of  Luzerne. 

WIIiKES    BAKRE. 

Surrounded  by  centres  of  mining  activity,  Wilkes  Barre 
covers  an  area  of  4.14  square  miles  on  the  banks  of  the 
Susquehanna.  Of  its  population  of  37,718  in  1890, 
10,194  were  foreign-born,  or  27.02  per  cent.,  and  13,032, 
or  34.55  per  cent.,  had  foreign-born  parents.  The  Ger- 
mans and  Irish  are  strongly  represented.  Of  mining  oper- 
atives, comparatively  few  are  found  within  city  limits. 

As  politicians,  the  police  officers  here  cannot,  of  course, 
alford  to  quarrel  with  the  liquor-dealers  any  more  than  the 
judges  can.  Hence  they  exercise  no  supervision  over  the 
saloons.  Of  the  illicit  traffic  they  feign  ignorance.  Nu- 
merous saloons  sell  on  Sundays  to  minors,  intoxicated  per- 
sons, and  habitual  drunkards.  There  are  no  regulations 
concerning  closing  hours. 

The  constables,  one  from  each  of  the  fifteen  wards  in  the 
city,  are  elected  for  periods  of  three  years.  Since  they  seek 
the  despised  office  (for  such  it  is  in  Wilkes  Barre)  simply 
for  what  they  may  get  out  of  it,  they  will  not  risk  a  re- 
election for  the  sake  of  doing  their  duty  by  reporting 
"  speak-easies  "  and  violations  of  the  liquor  law  generally. 
To  quote  a  high  official,  than  whom  there  is  no  better  au- 
thority, "  Four  fifths  of  the  constables  perjure  themselves 
when  making  returns  to  the  court." 

Intemperance  is  common,  although  the  police  returns  do 
not  indicate  a  high  rate  of  arrest.  The  penalty  for  drunk- 
enness is  usually  a  fine  of  two  dollars. 

The  conditions  in  other  parts  of  the  county  are,  if  any- 
thing, worse  than  in  Wilkes  Barre,  especially  in  some  of 
the  largest  mining  towns  —  Pittston,  Nanticoke,  Plymouth, 


WILKES   BARRE.  ^  287 

Hazleton,  and  others.  In  addition  to  the  licensed  places, 
the  records  of  the  collector  of  internal  revenue  indicate  the 
existence  of  about  600  "speak-easies."  It  may  safely  be 
asserted  that  there  are  naore.  Kowhere  is  the  law  prop- 
erly enforced.  The  police  and  constables  display  the  same 
indifterence.  In  the  few  cases  where  a  true  bill  is  found 
against  a  liquor-seller,  the  prosecutor  (usually  a  private  in- 
dividual) is  put  off  from  time  to  time,  until  he  is  forced 
to  a  settlement  of  the  case  out  of  court.  Should  he  succeed 
in  bringing  the  case  to  trial,  he  is  likely  to  face  a  jury 
ibent  on  acquittal  regardless  of  the  evidence.  It  is  asserted 
that  care  is  taken  to  select  jury  commissioners  favorable  to 
the  liquor  men. 

The  following  petition,  which  was  handed  a  gentleman 
of  Wilkes  Barre  in  1893,  to  be  presented  to  the  Court  of 
Quarter  Sessions,  speaks  for  itself :  — 

"To  the   Honorable,   the  Judges   of  the   Court  of   Quarter 

Sessions  of  Luzerne  County. 

"  We,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  Pittston  borough,  respect- 
fully represent  that  the  license  or  liquor  law  is  continually 
being  openly  and  flagrantly  violated  in  our  borough.  Speak- 
easies and  dives  in  almost  every  part  of  our  borough  are  open 
every  day  in  the  week.  The  proprietors  of  some  of  them  have 
been  arrested ;  but  arrest  in  some  cases  appears  to  be  useless 
for  the  reason  that  in  many  instances  witnesses  refuse  to  ap- 
pear when  subpoenaed. 

"  In  two  wards  of  the  borough  no  returns  were  made  by  the 
constables  of  said  wards  to  the  last  court.  This  utter  disregard 
of  law  and  defiance  of  the  courts  which  they  have  shown,  and 
still  continue  to  show,  is  making  them  more  bold,  and  at  pres- 
ent we  seem  to  have  no  protection  from  the  lawlessness  and 
disorder  they  are  creating.  Two  men  indicted  by  the  last 
grand  jury  are  still  selling. 

"  We,  the  Uquor  league  of ,  would  respectfully  ask  your 

Honorable  Court  for  protection. 

"Representing  the  liquor  league  of  Pittston,  etc." 

Whether  the  unenforced  high  license  law  is  preferable  to 


288  THE  LIQUOR   LAWS   OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

low  license,  except  from  a  financial  point  of  view,  is  open 
to  question.  It  is  not  known  that  intemperance  has  dimin- 
ished under  the  Brooks  law.  The  illicit  dealer  has  the 
while  multiplied  and  waxed  defiant.  Crime  is  on  the  in- 
crease. 

In  some  of  the  adjacent  counties,  Lackawanna  (contain- 
ing the  city  of  Scran  ton),  Carbon,  Schuylkill,  and  possibly 
others,  the  liquor  traffic  is  much  on  the  same  footing  as  in 
Luzerne. 

BERKS   COUNTY  AND  READING. 

Berks  County  presents  social  aspects  essentially  different 
from  those  hitherto  studied.  It  is  chiefly  an  agricultural 
community,  with  few  industrial  interests  outside  the  city 
of  Reading.  It  may  fairly  be  called  a  German  county, 
yet  there  has  been  no  large  immigration  from  Germany  of 
recent  date.  Indeed,  the  German,  as  well  as  the  whole 
foreign-born  population,  is  unexpectedly  small.  Of  the 
141,460  inhabitants  of  the  county  in  1890,  5,867,  or  4.14 
per  cent.,  were  born  outside  the  United  States,  and  those 
of  foreign  parentage  constitute  but  5.67  per  cent,  of  the 
total.  Nevertheless,  the  county  bears  an  unmistakable 
German  stamp.  Generation  after  generation  of  Germans 
followed  the  early  refugees  from  the  Palatinate  who  settled 
in  the  vicinity  of  Reading.  Their  descendants  now  till 
the  farms  or  form  a  large  part  of  the  population  of  the 
towns.  Although  they  have  long  forgotten  the  tongue  of 
their  fathers,  German  habits  and  customs  have  clung  to 
them  with  singular  tenacity.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the 
country  districts,  where  one  still  may  hear  that  strange 
jargon,  "Pennsylvania  Dutch."  Like  all  Germans,  those 
of  Berks  County  have,  from  the  earliest  days,  insisted  on 
having  their  beer,  and  they  have  had  it  in  unlimited  quan- 
tity. The  county  is  dotted  with  "hotels,"'  where  princi- 
pally this  beverage  is  supplied. 


BERKS   COUNTY.  289 

Under  the  existing  conditions  it  is  natural  that  the 
judges  should  follow  the  policy  of  granting  licenses  without 
stint.  Little  else  need  be  said  about  it.  So  far  as  the 
country  districts  and  small  towns  are  concerned,  there 
seems  to  be  little  popular  sentiment  in  favor  of  reducing 
the  drink  traffic.  It  would  perhaps  be  more  accurate  to 
say  that  the  people  insist  upon  a  liberal  license  policy,  than 
that  such  is  dictated  to  the  judges  by  the  liquor  element. 
A  judge  of  prohibitory  views  can  hardly  be  imagined  on 
the  Berks  County  bench. 

In  1895  nine  applications  for  license  were  rejected. 
This  was  an  unprecedented  number.  However,  a  desire 
to  make  liquor-selling  conform  to  the  law  occasionally 
manifests  itself  in  the  license  court.  Speaking  of  the  club 
nuisance  in  Eeading,  a  judge  remarked  in  the  court  of 
1895:  — 

"  Certainly,  associations  styling  themselves  clubs,  mostly  of 
a  temporary  character,  and  in  some  instances  largely  made  up 
of  minors,  are  formed  for  the  direct  pm-pose  of  indulging  in 
excessive  drinking  and  in  Sunday  drinking.  Their  supplies 
are  obtained  from  brewers  and  possibly  others  licensed  under 
the  wholesale  liquor  law. 

"  I  shall  certainly,  whenever  called  upon  to  act  on  a  whole- 
sale license  petition,  exact  from  the  applicant  proof  satisfactory 
to  my  mind  that  he  has  not  during  the  year  immediately  pre- 
ceding supplied  any  liquor  to  club  associations  such  as  I  have 
been  discussing." 

A  few  licenses  were  withheld  for  a  week  or  more,  but 
nothing  further  came  of  this  judicial  threat. 

In  the  whole  county  there  are  344  licenses  of  all  kinds, 
with  382  inhabitants  to  each,  as  against  242  inhabitants  to 
each  in  Luzerne  County. 

The  Sunday  law  and  other  regulations  are  indifferently 
observed,  but  the  illegal  selling  is  insignificant.  Licenses 
are  never  revoked,  but  once  in  a  while  a  violator  of  the 
law   is  denied  a  renewal   of  his   privilege.      The   officials 


290  THE   LIQUOK   LAWS   OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 

seldom  report  saloon-keepers  for  offenses  and  liquor  cases 
are  consequently  rare  in  the  court.  Here,  as  in  many 
other  places,  juries  are  inclined  to  be  lenient  with  the 
offenders. 

The  city  of  Reading  has  182  saloons  or  one  for  356  in- 
habitants. It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  that  the 
only  public  statue  in  the  place  commemorates  the  virtues 
and  services  of  a  great  brewer,  of  whom  the  inscription 
says : — 

"  His  zeal  sprung  from  his  firm  conviction  that,  in  striving 
to  advance  the  brewing  trade,  he  was  working  for  the  cause  of 
national  temperance." 

Although  it  was  assuredly  against  the  wishes  of  many 
citizens  that  the  municipality  granted  a  site  for  this  "mon- 
umental infamy,"  as  it  has  been  styled,  its  erection  is  not 
without  deep  significance.  Reading  is  a  "beer  town." 
The  brewing  interest  has  a  powerful  social  and  political 
influence. 

Beyond  some  observance  of  Sunday  closing,  the  saloons 
do  not  pay  much  attention  to  the  law.  The  police  are  too 
closely  associated  with  local  politics  to  interfere  with  them. 
Illegal  selling  is  common.  Some  years  ago  efforts  were 
made  to  take  the  saloons  in  hand  through  a  Law  and  Order 
League.  It  proved  a  most  unpopular  venture  and  came 
near  disrupting  churches.  At  present  no  efforts  are  made 
to  enforce  the  high  license  law  beyond  compelling  the  pay- 
ment of  the  larger  fee.  In  the  whole  county  the  number 
of  licenses  has  been  slightly  diminished  since  1887,  but 
only  because  of  their  greater  cost. 

The  arrests  for  drunkenness  and  drunkenness  and  disor- 
derly conduct  in  Reading  from  1885  to  1894  show  a  low 
rate,  which  means,  not  that  there  is  little  drunkenness,  but 
that  intoxicated  persons  are  allowed  great  liberty. 

So  far  as  the  liquor  question  is  concerned,  Bucks  and 
Lancaster  counties  have  much  in  common  with  Berks. 


READING.  291 

The  Pennsylvania  communities  suffering  the  least  from 
the  evils  of  the  drink  traffic  have  not  been  considered  in 
this  report.  The  fact  that  some  places,  for  instance,  Craw- 
ford and  Potter  counties,  are  under  partial  prohibition  has 
no  relation  to  the  Brooks  law;  and  that  in  others  liquor 
licenses  are  most  sparingly  granted  bespeaks  an  active  tem- 
perance sentiment,  which  directs  more  or  less  the  action  of 
the  judiciary,  but  not  in  virtue  of  new  powers  conferred 
by  the  high  license  law. 

Note.  The  license  fees  to  be  paid  by  wholesale  dealers, 
brewers,  distillers,  bottlers,  and  storekeepers  have  been 
materially  increased. 

1898. 


THE   OHIO  LIQUOR  TAX. 

The  Ohio  liquor  law  is  so  simple,  both  in  form  and 
application,  that  an  elaborate  explanation  is  unnecessary. 
The  traffic  is  not  prohibited  nor  licensed:  it  is  simply 
taxed.  The  amount  of  the  tax,  which  is  uniform,  is  fixed 
by  the  legislature,  and  it  cannot  be  changed  by  any  munici- 
pality. The  sale  of  liquor  is  not  a  crime  at  the  common 
law.  The  statutes  of  Ohio  have  at  no  time  made  it  in  itself 
a  criminal  pursuit. 

From  1792  until  1851,  when  the  new  Constitution  went 
into  effect,  the  sale  of  liquor  by  unlicensed  venders,  to  be 
drunk  on  the  premises,  was  forbidden.  The  only  other 
restrictions  were  the  prohibition  of  its  sale  to  certain  per- 
sons, such  as  minors  and  habitual  drunkards ;  or  at  certain 
times,  such  as  on  Sundays  and  election  days;  or  at  certain 
places.  Gaming  and  disorderly  conduct  in  taverns  were 
punishable.  The  act  in  force  at  the  date  of  the  adoption 
of  the  new  Constitution  was  the  act  of  1831,  which  did  not 
confer  the  right  to  deal  in  spirits,  nor  did  it  interfere  with 
it.  It  merely  secured  to  licensed  tavern-keepers  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  sale  in  quantities  less  than  one  quart, 
to  be  drunk  upon  the  premises.  Under  the  license  system, 
fireside  drinking  was  the  rule ;  the  saloon,  as  we  under- 
stand it,  did  not  exist;  the  tavern  was  regarded  as  the 
traveler's  temporary  home,  and  the  license  was  designed 
to  secure  to  him  the  enjoyment  of  such  creature  comforts 
as  he  might  lawfully  have  enjoyed  in  his  own  house. 

During   all   this   period,    whatever  may  have   been   the 
abuse  of  the  hospitality  of  the  tavern  to  strangers,  in  con- 


EARLY  LEGISLATION.  293 

sequence  of  the  local  patronage  of  the  bar  by  residents  of 
the  neighborhood,  but  one  successful  effort  was  made  to 
deprive  innkeepers  of  their  right.  The  legislature  in 
1847  passed  a  local  option  act,  making  the  issue  of  a  license 
in  any  township  to  depend  upon  the  will  of  the  electors 
expressed  in  an  annual  vote.  This  act  was  repealed  in 
1848. 

That  the  evils  of  intemperance  were  felt,  however,  is 
evident  from  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1851, 
which  repealed  so  much  of  the  act  of  1831  as  authorized 
license,  but  left  the  penalties  against  selling  without  license 
intact.  The  intention  of  this  legislation  can  have  been 
no  other  than  the  complete  suppression  of  the  retail  trade 
in  malt,  vinous,  and  spirituous  beverages.  It  is  a  curious 
and  instructive  fact  that  the  saloons  of  Ohio  have  grown 
up  under  the  very  act  which,  it  was  supposed,  would  ren- 
der their  existence  impossible. 

The  opposition  to  the  liquor  traffic  further  expressed 
itself  in  the  incorporation,  in  the  Constitution  of  1851,  of 
an  anti-license  clause,  in  the  following  words:  "No  license 
to  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  shall  hereafter  be  granted 
in  this  State;  but  the  General  Assembly  may  by  law  pro- 
vide against  evils  resulting  therefrom."  A  separate  vote 
was  had  upon  this  claiise,  which  resulted  in  its  adoption 
by  a  majority  of  8,982;  the  votes  in  its  favor  being  113,- 
237,  against  104,255  in  the  negative. 

The  situation  then  was  one  in  which  the  State,  the  only 
jurisdiction  with  power  to  grant  license,  refused  to  do  so; 
the  sale  of  liquor  at  retail,  without  license,  was  strictly 
forbidden;  the  sale  in  quantities  not  less  than  a  quart,  for 
home  consumption,  was  permitted.  This  condition  could 
not  be  otherwise  than  permanent,  unless  the  legislature 
should  repeal  the  penal  provisions  contained  in  the  act  of 
1831. 

Instead  of  repealing  these  provisions,  the  General  As- 


294  THE   OHIO   LIQUOR   TAX. 

sembly  in  1854  emphasized  the  existing  condition  by 
making  it  "unlawful  for  any  person  or  persons,  by  agent 
or  otherwise,  to  sell,  in  any  quantity,  intoxicating  liquors 
to  be  drunk  in,  upon,  or  about  the  building  or  premises 
where  sold,  or  in  any  adjoining  room,  building,  or  premises, 
or  other  place  of  public  resort  connected  with  said  build- 
ing. .  .  .  All  places  where  intoxicating  liquors  are  sold 
in  violation  of  this  act  shall  be  taken,  held,  and  declared 
to  be  common  nuisances;  and  all  rooms,  taverns,  eating- 
houses,  bazaars,  restaurants,  or  other  places  of  public  resort 
where  intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  in  violation  of  this 
act,  shall  be  shut  up  and  abated  as  public  nuisances,  upon 
conviction  of  the  keeper  thereof." 

Concerning  the  original  motive  and  the  historical  effect 
of  the  anti-saloon  clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  Ohio  Su- 
preme Court  has  said :  — 

"  The  real  significance  of  this  provision  has  been  a  source  of 
no  little  doubt  and  controversy.  Many,  if  not  a  majority 
of  the  people  of  the  State,  supposed  that,  if  no  license  wei'e 
granted  to  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  the  traffic  would  be 
illegal,  and  perish  for  want  of  protection  and  by  the  infliction 
of  such  penalties  as  might  be  imposed  under  laws  made  to 
regulate  the  evils  resulting  from  the  traffic.  And  it  may  be 
observed  that  the  practice  that  had  prevailed  under  laws  en- 
acted at  an  early  day  and  continued  in  force  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  in  1851,  of  licensing  the  traffic  in  liquors 
as  a  beverage,  had  educated  the  people  to  suppose  that  without 
a  license  such  traffic  could  not  be  carried  on  in  the  forms  in 
which  it  had  been  usual  to  license  it.  If  this  is  a  correct 
interpretation  of  the  provision,  it  has  proved  a  great  delusion, 
for  its  practical  working  has  been  to  make  the  traffic  in  a 
measure  free.  Laws  enacted  for  the  regulation  of  the  traffic 
have  not  been  enforced,  have  become  in  a  measure  obsolete, 
and  the  traffic  and  its  abuses  have  grown  to  such  proportions 
as  justly  to  alarm  all  who  reflect  upon  the  interests  of  the  State 
and  of  society."     (Adler  v.  Whitbeck.) 

In  May,  1882,  the  Ohio  legislature  attempted,  in  the 
passage    of   "the    Pond    act,"    to    do   what   the   State    of 


THE   POND   LAW.  295 

Michigan  had  done.  Every  person  engaged  in  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  was  required  to  file  with  the  probate 
judge  of  his  county  a  bond  conditioned  for  the  faithful 
performance  of  the  requirements  of  the  act;  to  engage  or 
continue  in  the  traffic  without  having  executed  such  bond, 
or  after  the  bond  should  have  been  adjudged  to  be  for- 
feited, was  made  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  fine  or  im- 
prisonment or  both. 

The  constitutionality  of  the  Pond  act  was  passed  upon 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  in  the  case  of  The  State 
V.  Hipp,  which  was  an  action  for  a  writ  of  mandamus 
compelling  a  probate  judge  to  accept  and  file  a  bond  which 
he  rejected  on  the  sole  ground  that  the  act  in  question  was 
unconstitutional.  The  court  held  it  to  be  in  effect  a  license 
law  and  therefore  void.  The  ground  of  the  decision  is 
sufficiently  indicated  in  the  following  citations  from  the 
opinion  rendered :  — 

•'  The  provisions  of  the  statute  impose  conditions  precedent 
to  the  lawful  prosecution  of  [the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors]. 
Non-compliance  with  the  statute  renders  its  prosecution,  to  any 
extent,  wholly  illegal ;  hence  the  act  falls  within  the  definition 
of  a  license  law.  ...  In  substance  it  is,  to  all  dealers  who 
fail  to  comply  with  its  provisions,  a  stringent  pi'ohibitory  law  ; 
and  as  to  all  dealers  who  do  so  comply,  it  grants  the  privilege 
to  deal  in  such  liquors  to  the  extent  not  prohibited  by  pre- 
viously existing  laws.  .  .  .  The  special  privilege  which  is  con- 
ferred under  this  act  is  as  plainly  a  license  as  if  it  had  been  in 
terms  so  called.  .  .  .  The  giving  or  not  giving  the  bond  is  not 
an  essential  matter.  The  bond  is  to  secure  the  payment  of  the 
tax.  The  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  would 
have  been  the  same,  had  the  legislature  not  required  the  bond 
to  be  given,  but  had  it  required  the  payment  of  the  same  sums 
for  the  privilege  of  engaging  or  continuing  in  the  traffic." 

At  the  next  succeeding  session  of  the  General  Assembly 
an  act  was  passed,  in  April,  1883,  commonly  known  as 
"the  Scott  law,"  which  also  assessed  a  tax  upon  the  liquor 
traffic,  and  made  such  tax  a  lien  upon  the  real  property  on 


296  THE   OHIO  LIQUOR  TAX. 

and  in  which  the  business  was  conducted.  To  engage  or 
continue  in  it  without  the  written  consent  of  the  owner  of 
the  land  or  premises  occupied  for  this  purpose  was,  by  the 
terms  of  the  act,  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  fine  or  im- 
prisonment or  both. 

In  The  State  v.  Frame,  an  action  by  the  attorney-gen- 
eral for  a  writ  of  mandamus  compelling  a  county  auditor 
to  publish  the  notice  required  by  the  eighth  section  of 
the  act,  the  Supreme  Court  held  the  act  to  be  constitu- 
tional. The  question  of  constitutionality  was  again  raised 
in  Butzman  v.  Whitbeck,  a  petition  in  error  to  reverse  the 
judgment  of  a  district  court  ordering  the  sale  of  property 
to  satisfy  an  unpaid  assessment.  In  that  case  the  Supreme 
Court  decided  that  the  Scott  law  Avas  "a  license  law,  so 
far  as  the  act  attempts  to  secure  a  lien  upon  real  estate 
occupied  by  tenants,  whether  the  lease  be  executed  before 
or  after  the  passage  of  the  act."  It  therefore  reversed 
the  judgment  of  the  lower  court.  Finally,  in  The  State 
V.  Sinks,  an  action  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  compelling  a 
county  treasurer  to  receive  an  assessment,  the  Supreme 
Court  overruled  its  own  decision  in  The  State  v.  Frame, 
and  pronounced  the  entire  act  constitutional. 

In  Butzman  v.  Whitbeck,  the  court  said :  — 

"  When  this  law  took  effect,  very  few  [dealers  in  intoxicat- 
ing liquors]  were  equipped  with  the  written  consent  of  the 
owners  of  the  premises  occupied.  As  to  all  of  this  class 
[dealers  who  were  not  tenants]  who  were  not  thus  supplied, 
the  act  was  a  prohibitory  law.  ...  It  said  to  the  dealer  upon 
another's  premises  :  '  Procure  the  wi'itten  consent  of  the  owner 
of  the  land  you  occupy,  or  bow  to  the  penalties  denounced 
against  you.'  Without  such  writing  the  dealer  is  a  criminal. 
Armed  with  it,  his  business  is  as  lawful  as  the  traffic  iu  dry 
goods.  .  .  .  The  act  confides  to  the  owner  the  authority  to  say 
whether  a  dealer  occupying  his  premises  shall  stand  as  a  crim- 
inal before  the  law.  .  .  .  The  condition  required  in  tlie  Pond 
law  was  to  procure  a  bond;  the  condition  required  by  the 
Scott  law  is  to  procure  the  written  consent  of  the  owner." 


THE   DOW  LAW.  297 

In  The  State  v.  Sinks,  the  court  said :  — 

"  Surely,  if  the  provision  quoted  from  the  Pond  law  consti- 
tuted that  act  a  license  law,  much  more  does  the  above  pro- 
vision from  the  Scott  law  constitute  that  act  a  license  law, 
with  respect  to  any  lien  upon  lands  occupied  by  tenants.  .  .  . 
The  legislature  evidently  regarded  the  clause  as  to  tenants 
vital ;  the  act  never  would  have  been  passed  without  it ;  and, 
that  clause  being  unconstitutional,  the  whole  act  as  a  tax  law 
entirely  fails." 

The  General  Assembly  thereupon,  in  May,  1886,  enacted 
"the  Dow  law,"  by  which  the  assessment  and  collection 
of  a  tax  upon  the  liquor  traffic  was  authorized,  and  the 
assessment  was  made  a  lien  upon  the  real  property  occu- 
pied; but  the  conditions  expressed  in  the  former  acts  were 
omitted.  No  special  privileges  were  granted  in  considera- 
tion of  the  payment  of  the  tax;  and  no  penalties  were 
imposed  upon  dealers  who  fail  to  pay  the  same. 

This  act,  in  the  case  of  Adler  v.  Whitbeck,  an  action 
to  restrain  a  county  treasurer  from  collecting  an  assess- 
ment, was  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court,  which  declared 
it  to  be  competent  legislation,  within  both  the  taxing 
power  and  the  police  power  of  the  State,  and  not  a  license 
law.  In  a  subsequent  case,  Anderson  r.  Brewster,  the 
legal  status  in  Ohio  of  the  dealer  in  spirituous  and  malt 
liquors  is  expressed  with  admirable  clearness  and  con- 
ciseness, in  the  following  words :  — 

"  The  Dow  law  does  not  hold  out  permission  to  engage  in 
the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  nor  stamp  it  with  illegality, 
nor  prescribe  a  condition  precedent  upon  which  one  may  have 
the  right  to  carry  on  such  business.  It  repeals  that  portion  of 
section  6941  of  the  Revised  Statutes  which  forbids  the  sale 
of  intoxicating  liquors  to  be  drunk  in  or  upon  the  building  or 
premises  where  sold ;  and  if  one  chooses  to  engage  in  the  traf- 
fic, he  must  do  so  subject  to  the  burden  which  is  afterward 
imposed  upon  his  business.  If  he  fails  to  pay  the  assessment 
thereon,  his  business  does  not  thereby  become  illegal ;  and 
although  his  goods  and  chattels  may  by  his  default  become 


298  THE   OHIO   LIQUOR   TAX. 

liable  to  be  levied  on  and  sold,  the  property  of  dealers  in  other 
commodities  is  also  liable  to  be  seized  and  sold  for  non-pay- 
ment of  personal  taxes.  He  enters  upon  the  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors  without  a  license,  and,  when  found  in  the 
business,  the  law  suffers  it  to  continue,  but  charged  with  the 
burden  of  a  tax." 

The  following  is  a  succinct  but  accurate  account  of  the 
present  state  of  the  law.  The  manufacture  of  spirituous 
and  malt  liquors  is  free.  The  sale  of  liquor,  either  at 
wholesale  or  retail,  is  conceded  to  be  the  natural  right  of 
every  citizen.  The  law  contents  itself  with  forbidding 
such  sale  (1)  on  Sunday  or  on  any  election  day;  (2)  to 
a  person  intoxicated  or  in  the  habit  of  getting  intoxicated; 
(3)  to  a  minor,  except  upon  the  written  order  of  his  par- 
ent, guardian,  or  family  physician;  (4)  within  1,200  yards 
of  certain  state  institutions,  or  (without  a  special  permit) 
within  four  miles  of  the  place  where  any  religious  assem- 
bly is  collected  for  worship,  and  so  on.  The  prohibition 
of  the  sale  on  Sunday  does  not  apply  to  druggists;  there 
are  also  certain  exceptions  as  to  prohibited  places  of  sale, 
which  apply  to  tavern-keepers  and  some  other  persons, 
which  need  not  be  here  enumerated.  The  law  does  not  for- 
bid the  combination  with  the  saloon  trade  of  other  attrac- 
tions, as  music,  dancing,  and  games,  or  of  other  pursuits, 
such  as  the  sale  of  provisions  or  the  exhibition  of  plays; 
there  are  no  restrictive  regulations  as  to  chairs,  tables, 
screens,  and  the  like;  the  business  is  open  to  women  as 
well  as  to  men.  It  is  taxed  at  the  uniform  rate  of  $250 
per  year  for  each  place  so  occupied ;  the  tax  is  a  first  lien 
upon  the  premises.  The  dealer  is  civilly  liable  for  loss 
and  damage  resulting  from  the  intoxication  of  any  per- 
son to  whom  he  may  have  sold  or  given  any  intoxicating 
liquor ;  damages  include  exemplary  damages,  and  may  be 
collected  by  the  husband,  wife,  child,  parent,  guardian,  or 
employer  of  the  person  injured  in  property  or  person;  this 


THE   REVENUE  FROM   THE   TRAFFIC.  299 

liability  extends  to  the  owner  of  the  premises.  The  guar- 
dian or  any  near  relative  may  enjoin  the  sale  of  liquor  to 
any  individual. 

Of  the  revenue  derived  from  the  liquor  traffic,  two 
tenths  are  paid  into  the  general  revenue  fund  of  the  State, 
two  tenths  to  the  town  or  county  poor  fund,  and  the  re- 
mainder is  equally  divided  between  the  municipal  police 
and  general  revenue  funds. 

With  respect  to  local  option,  upon  demand  of  one  fourth 
of  the  qualified  electors  in  any  township,  a  special  town- 
ship election  must  be  held,  to  determine  whether  the  sale 
of  liquor  shall  be  permitted  or  prohibited  Avithin  said  town- 
ship; if  a  majority  of  the  ballots  cast  is  "against  the  sale," 
such  sale  is  prohibited  from  and  after  thirty  days  after  the 
holding  of  such  election. 

The  extent  to  which  local  prohibition  prevails  in  Ohio 
is  not  easily  ascertained;  there  are  no  official  or  other  rec- 
ords from  which  to  procure  the  necessary  information, 
without  addressing  a  personal  letter  to  the  clerk  of  every 
town.  There  are  townships  in  which  there  are  no  saloons, 
but  where  no  vote  has  been  taken  upon  the  toleration  of 
the  traffic,  there  being  simply  no  demand  in  them  for 
liquor.  It  is  stated  that,  including  these  with  those  in 
which  local  prohibition  exists  by  law,  the  number  would 
probably  fall  below  one  fourth  of  the  number  of  townships 
in  the  State.  It  is  further  stated  on  good  authority  that 
in  certain  townships  with  local  prohibition  liquor  is  openly 
sold ;  but  beer  is  sold  as  cider,  and  whiskey  as  tea ;  a 
would-be  customer  must  know  how  to  order  a  drink,  or  ho 
will  fail  to  get  it. 

The  revenue  from  the  liquor  tax  is  published  annually 
in  the  reports  of  the  state  auditor;  the  statement  for  1888 
covers  only  the  payments  made  in  July.  The  amount  of 
tax  "assessed"  under  the  Scott  law  in  1885  is  said  to 
have   been  $1,079,338.30,      Beginning  with   1886,   when 


300 


THE   OHIO  LIQUOR   TAX. 


1891     . 

.     $2,626,806.12 

1892     . 

.       2,683,939.07 

1893     . 

.      2,825,142.64 

1894     . 

.      2,660,654.38 

the  Dow  law  went  into  effect,  the  total  receipts  from  this 
source  each  year  for  nine  years  have  been  as  follows :  — 

1886  .     .    .     $2,048,4.50.14 

1887  .     .     .        1,691,121.50 

1888  (estimated)  2,250,000.00 

1889  .     .     .        2,281,576.41 

1890  .    .     .       2,458,554.18 

To  calculate  the  average  (not  actual)  number  of  saloons 
paying  tax  each  year,  the  amounts  stated  must  be  divided 
by  250.  Apparently,  the  immediate  but  temporary  effect 
of  the  Dow  law  was  to  diminish  the  number,  which  is 
said  to  have  fallen  from  8,194  in  1886  to  6,764  in  1887. 
In  1888  it  began  to  rise.  The  highest  point  was  reached 
in  1893.  The  following  table  exhibits  the  average  number 
of  saloons  each  year  and  the  average  number  of  inhabitants 
of  the  State  at  large  for  each  year :  — 


Year. 

Saloons. 

Inhab. 

Year. 

Saloons. 

Inhab. 

1886 

8,194 

425 

1891 

10,507 

391 

1887 

6,764 

522 

1892 

10,734 

351 

1888 

9,000 

397 

1893 

11,301 

338 

1889 

9,126 

397 

1894 

10,643 

363 

1890 

9,834 

373 

So  far  as  the  number  of  saloons  paying  tax,  when 
compared  with  the  population,  is  a  correct  index  of  the 
consumption  of  spirits  per  capita,  these  figures  show  a 
slight  increase,  graphically  represented  by  the  following 
line :  — 


1886. 


1892.    1893.   1894. 


300 

400 

500 

Allowance  must,  however,  be  made  for  the  greater  thor- 
ouglmess  with  which  the  tax  is  now  collected  than  when 
the  law  was  still  new. 


THE   LAW   AND  DRUNKENNESS.  301 

The  number  of  inhabitants  to  each  saloon  stated  in  the 
table  includes  the  rural  population  and  the  residents  of 
townships  in  which  no  saloon  exists. 

There  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  but  one  way  by  which  to 
judge  whether  drunkenness  is  increasing  relative  to  the 
population.  There  is  obviously  no  fixed  relation  between 
the  number  of  tippling-houses  and  the  amount  of  liquors 
consumed;  neither  is  there  a  fixed  relation  between  per 
capita  consumption  and  intoxication.  It  may  be  assumed, 
however,  that  the  arrests  for  public  intoxication  and  for 
disorderly  conduct  (which  is  so  largely  due  to  intoxication) 
in  a  series  of  years  do  afi"ord  an  approximately  trustworthy 
basis  for  an  opinion  upon  the  question  whether  drinking  to 
intoxication  is  more  or  less  prevalent  than  at  some  given 
date  in  the  past. 

In  the  city  of  Columbus  the  population  and  the  arrests, 
including  both  the  total  arrests  and  the  arrests  for  drunk- 
enness and  disorder,  in  1880  and  1890,  were  as  follows :  — 

For  drunkenness 
Tear.  Population.  Arrests.  or  disorder. 

1880  51,467  3,561  1,491 

1890  88,150  5,319  2,236 

The  number  of  arrests  per  day,  in  the  aggregate,  for 
these  two  special  causes,  in  each  of  the  two  years  named, 
was  as  follows :  — 

For  drunkenness 
Tear.  Arrests.  or  disorder. 

1880  9.76  4.08 

1890  14.57  6.13 

It  follows  that,  compared  with  the  population,  the  num- 
ber of  arrests  in  1880,  per  day,  was  one  in  5,273;  but  in 
1890  it  was  one  in  6,050.  The  number  of  arrests,  per  day 
in  1880,  for  drunkenness  or  disorder,  was  one  in  12,614; 
but  in  1890  it  was  one  in  14,380.  These  statistics  show 
a  perceptible  improvement  during  the  decade. 


302 


THE   OHIO   LIQUOR   TAX. 


The  ratio  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  and  disorder  to  the 
total  arrests,  in  1880,  was  100  to  239;  in  1890  it  was  100 
to  238. 

A  similar  calculation  for  the  city  of  Cincinnati  is  pre- 
sented below :  — 


Year.                       Population. 

Arrests. 

For  drunkenness 
or  disorder. 

1880                    2.56,139 
1890                   296,908 

9,474 

13,898 

4,160 
4,297 

.rrests  per  day :  — 

Tear. 

Arrests. 

For  drunkenness 
or  disorder. 

1880 

25.96 

11.40 

1890 

38.08 

11.77 

The  number  of  arrests  per  day  in  1880  was  one  in 
9,829;  but  in  1890  it  was  one  in  7,813.  The  number  of 
arrests  per  day  in  1880,  for  drunkenness  or  disorder,  was 
one  in  2,238;  but  in  1890  it  was  one  in  2,523.  This  shows 
an  improvement  in  the  matter  of  drunkenness,  but  not  in 
that  of  general  respect  for  law.  The  ratio  of  arrests  for 
drunkenness  and  disorder  to  the  total  arrests,  in  1880,  was 
100  to  228;  in  1890  it  was  100  to  323. 

The  number  of  saloons  in  Cincinnati  in  1894  was  1,943. 
There  were  that  year  2,875  arrests  for  drunkenness  and 
1,886  for  disorderly  conduct;  the  total  arrests  for  all  causes 
were  15,594.  The  arrests  were  equivalent  to  eight  during 
the  year  for  each  saloon,  of  which  two  were  for  intoxica- 
tion or  for  conduct  which  may  have  been  the  result  of  in- 
toxication. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  competent  judges  that  the 
substitution  of  a  simple  tax  upon  the  liquor  traffic  for  a 
license  would  have  a  marked  effect  in  taking  the  saloon 
"out  of  politics."  This  opinion  receives  some  confirma- 
tion from  the  experience  of  the  last  ten  years  in  Ohio.  It 
is  said  that,  since  the  passage  of  the  Dow  law,  there  has 
been  but  one  election  for  state  officers  in  which  the  licpior 


THE   SALOON   IN    POLITICS.  303 

question  is  thought  to  have  affected  the  result.  The  pro- 
hibition vote  is  small,  and  it  is  drawn  in  about  equal  pro- 
portions from  the  two  leading  parties.  But  the  liquor 
question  may  still  very  easily  affect  the  choice  of  members 
of  the  legislature  from  close  districts,  and,  by  changing 
the  political  complexion  of  the  joint  assembly  of  the  House 
and  Senate,  determine  the  choice  of  a  United  States  sena- 
tor. The  complication  of  this  irritating  issue  with  munici- 
pal politics  is  as  provoking  in  Ohio  as  anywhere  else. 
Whenever  any  municipality  attains  a  certain  size,  it  may 
be  assumed  that  the  eternal  local  question  which,  in  the 
absence  of  a  more  absorbing  and  controlling  issue,  will 
determine  the  choice  of  the  mayor  and  council  at  every 
election  is  whether  the  town  shall  or  shall  not  be  "run 
wide  open ; "  that  is,  whether  the  laws  against  liquor-sell- 
ing, gambling,  and  prostitution  shall  be  rigidly  enforced. 
The  better  element  in  most  municipalities  demands  the 
strict  enforcement  of  all  laws  for  the  suppression  of  immo- 
rality and  for  the  better  observance  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath; it  threatens  withdrawal  of  support  at  the  polls  from 
the  party  in  power,  if  pledges  are  not  given  in  advance 
that  this  will  be  the  policy  of  the  local  administration,  if 
the  party  is  successful  in  electing  its  candidates.  There- 
upon, if  the  pledges  asked  are  given,  the  so-called  "liberal  " 
element  in  the  majority  party  "scratches"  its  own  party 
candidates  for  mayor  and  councilmen,  votes  for  the  nomi- 
nees of  the  minority,  and  this  combination  results  in  a 
political  change,  in  the  interest  of  self-indulgence  if  not  of 
vice.  If  the  worse  element,  commonly  called  the  "gang," 
is  in  power,  it  has  the  opportunity,  and  often  makes  use 
of  it,  to  falsify  the  election  returns  and  so  perpetuate  its 
grasp  upon  the  police  force.  The  odds,  in  this  struggle, 
are  always  against  the  "reformers."  The  substitution  of 
a  tax  for  a  license  does  not  alter  the  local  situation.  So 
long  as  there  is  any  restriction  whatever  upon  the  freedom 


304  THE   OHIO   LIQUOR   TAX. 

of  the  traffic,  the  liquor  interest  will  array  itself  in  solid 
opposition  to  such  restrictions;  it  desires  the  maximum  of 
power  with  the  minimum  of  responsibility,  and  will  make 
pecuniary  and  other  sacrifices  to  gain  its  ends. 

The  central  point  of  the  fight  seems  everywhere  to  be 
the  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  liquor  on  Sunday.  In  Cin- 
cinnati the  police  declare  it  to  be  impossible  to  close  the 
saloons  on  that  day.  The  front  doors  are  closed,  and  the 
curtains  are  drawn,  but  that  is  all.  There  are  large  beer 
gardens  on  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  which  are  open  all 
day  and  during  the  evening;  they  are  thronged,  in  pleas- 
ant weather,  with  customers.  On  every  Monday  morning 
the  proprietors  are  called  to  answer  in  the  police  court  for 
the  violation  of  the  Sunday  law,  and  the  cases  are  regularly 
dismissed  on  the  ground  that  it  is  impossible  to  procure 
juries  who  will  render  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  such  cases. 
The  same  is  true  of  participants  in  Sunday  theatrical  exhi- 
bitions. The  members  of  the  common  council  have  the 
nomination  of  jurors.  The  penalty  involves  imprisonment 
as  well  as  fine.  The  power  of  the  police  is  limited  to  the 
arrest  of  ofi"enders;  they  cannot  close  the  drinking  estab- 
lishments. The  mayor  cannot  revoke  the  licenses  of  the 
proprietors,  for  there  are  none  to  revoke.  Bail  can  be 
given  as  many  times  in  a  day  as  any  individual  may  be 
arrested.  In  a  word,  public  opinion  is  not  behind  the 
Sunday  closing  law.  To  enforce  it  would  involve  the  de- 
feat of  the  party  so  enforcing  it  at  the  next  ensuing  elec- 
tion. The  efforts  of  the  police  are  therefore  limited  to  the 
preservation  of  public  order,  in  which  they  must  be  admit- 
ted to  be  fully  as  successfvil  as  in  other  cities  of  the  same 
size;  and  it  is  the  personal  opinion  of  the  writer  that  their 
success  in  this  direction  is  rather  exceptional,  owing  to  the 
non-partisan  character  of  the  force,  the  thorough  system 
pursued  in  the  training  of  the  men,  and  the  capacity  and 
integrity  of  the  chief. 


GENERAL   SUMMARY.  305 

There  is  in  Cincinnati  a  "Municipal  Keform  League," 
which  has  for  its  object  "to  secure  the  enforcement  of  the 
laws  relating  to  honesty,  public  order,  and  morality,"  and 
which  advocates  the  election  of  the  best  men  for  municipal 
officers,  without  regard  to  partisanship.  It  maintains  an 
agent  or  agents,  whose  business  it  is  to  seek  for  evidence 
of  the  violation  of  law,  and  call  the  attention  of  the  author- 
ities to  it.  There  is  also  in  the  State  at  large  an  organi- 
zation entitled  the  "Anti-Saloon  League,"  which  seeks  to 
secure  legislation  in  the  direction  of  the  extension  of  local 
option,  by  so  amending  the  present  local  option  law  as  to 
provide  for  the  submission,  once  in  every  two  years,  to  the 
voters  at  every  voting  precinct  in  the  State,  of  the  question, 
"  Shall  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage  be 
prohibited  1  "  and  for  the  closing  of  saloons  and  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  traffic  in  every  county,  township,  incorporated 
village,  city,  and  ward  of  a  city,  in  which  a  majority  of 
the  votes  cast  is  for  such  prohibition.  Under  existing  law, 
the  town  is  the  voting  unit;  if  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
succeeds,  it  will  thereafter  be  but  one  of  several  units. 


LIQUOE   LAWS   IN   INDIANA,    SINCE   1851. 

In  1851  the  new  Constitution  of  Indiana  was  adopted. 
The  local  and  special  legislation  prevalent  under  the  former 
Constitution  had  grown  to  be  an  intolerable  evil.  In  the 
language  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  State  tended  to  become 
"a  coterie  of  small  independencies,  like  so  many  counties 
palatine."  In  order  to  make  the  State  a  unit,  the  new 
Constitution  forbade  the  passage  of  local  laws  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  offenders  and  for  the  regulation  of  county  and 
township  business,  and  ordained  that  "whenever  a  general 
law  can  be  made  applicable,  all  laws  shall  be  general  and 
of  uniform  operation  throughout  the  State." 

A  general  law  was  passed  in  1853  forbidding  retail  liquor- 
selling  "without  the  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  legal 
voters  of  the  proper  township  who  may  cast  their  votes  for 
license  at  the  April  election. "  The  consent  required  was  to 
be  "determined  by  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  or  against 
license,  to  be  expressed  on  the  ticket,  and  no  ticket  on  which 
the  same  is  not  expressed  to  be  counted  either  way. "  Con- 
sent to  the  issue  of  license  (by  the  county  auditor)  was 
valid  for  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  election,  and  no 
longer. 

The  Supreme  Court ^  held  that  "the  taking  effect  of 
this  act,  or  at  least  so  much  of  it  as  provided  for  the  issue 
of  license  —  in  other  words,  whether  there  should  be  any 
power  to  issue  license  —  was  made  to  depend  upon  the 
vote  of  the  people  of  each  township,"  and  that  it  was  "a 
specious  and  accommodating  refinement  on  local  legisla- 
tion," contrary  to  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution  on 
1  In  Maize  v.  The  State,  4  Ind.  342. 


AN   EFFORT   AT   PROHIBITION,  307 

this  subject.  Nevertlieless,  "as  a  license  law,  the  act  is 
complete  in  itself,  without  tlie  part  relating  to  the  town- 
ship vote.  So  much  as  relates  to  that  vote  may  be  consid- 
ered as  stricken  out,  and  the  license  issues  on  filing  the 
requisite  bond."  The  comment  made  upon  this  decision 
by  the  court  itself,  some  years  later,  ^  was  that  in  holding 
the  conditions  void  upon  which  the  law  was  to  take  effect, 
and  sustaining  the  other  provisions  of  the  act,  "the  court 
possibly  strained  the  principle  that  a  law  may  be  void  in 
part  and  valid  in  part,  beyond  its  just  application,  in  order 
that  the  State  might  not  be  left  without  some  regulation  of 
the  liquor  traffic." 

Local  option,  or  prohibition  by  minor  political  divisions, 
is  of  course  essentially  a  compromise  between  what  the 
people  of  Iowa  have  denominated  "state-wide"  prohibition 
and  "state-wide"  license.  There,  as  here,  the  Supreme 
Court  has  held  that  there  can  be  no  middle  ground  between 
the  two,  if  laws  are  to  be  of  uniform  application.  In  In- 
diana the  movement  to  restrict  the  retail  sale  of  liquor 
within  narrower  limits  began  with  local  option,  embodied 
in  special  statutes.  When  it  was  attempted  to  embody 
local  option  in  a  general  statute,  the  Constitution  operated 
as  a  bar  to  such  action. 

The  legislature  in  1855  went  to  the  opposite  extreme, 
and  enacted  a  stringent  prohibitory  law.  Imported  liquors 
might  be  sold  in  the  original  casks  or  packages,  without 
breaking  bulk.  Cider  and  wine  might  be  made  from  fruit 
grown  by  the  manufacturer,  but  he  could  not  sell  either  in 
any  quantity  less  than  three  gallons,  to  be  taken  away  at 
one  time.  In  order  to  manufacture  intoxicating  liquors, 
a  permit  from  the  county  commissioners  was  essential, 
good  for  a  single  year,  and  the  product  could  be  legally 
disposed  of  only  through  county  agents.  The  county  com- 
missioners were  required  to  appoint  county  agents  for  the 
1  Ingersoll  v.  The  State,  11  Ind.  464. 


308    "  LIQUOR    LAWS    IN    INDIANA. 

purchase  and  sale,  at  the  cost  and  -for  the  benefit  of  the 
county,  of  pure  spirituous  and  intoxicating  liquor  for  medi- 
cinal and  mechanical  uses  only ;  such  agents  not  to  be  hotel 
or  restaurant  keepers,  proprietors  of  any  place  of  public 
entertainment  or  resort,  or  in  charge  of  any  vessel;  not 
more  than  two  agents  to  be  appointed  in  any  township, 
unless  such  township  should  contain  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand inhabitants,  and  then  at  the  rate  of  one  agent  for 
each  five  thousand  inhabitants.  Liquors  illegally  held  for 
sale,  and  all  devices  to  deal  them  out,  or  to  conceal  them, 
were  to  be  destroyed  or  removed  as  nuisances. 

The  constitutionality  of  prohibition  was  at  once  chal- 
lenged.^ Roderick  Beebe,  having  been  convicted  of  two 
distinct  violations  of  the  act  of  1855,  and  fined  therefor, 
failed  either  to  pay  or  to  replevy  the  fines,  whereupon  he 
was  committed  to  jail.  He  secured  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  from  the  common  pleas  judge  of  Marion  County. 
A  motion  to  release  him,  on  the  ground  of  the  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  act,  was  denied.  The  case  was  appealed 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  which  ordered  the  prisoner  dis- 
charged, but  upon  other  grounds,  being  equally  divided 
upon  the  main  issue  (one  judge  being  absent).  The  law 
therefore  technically  remained  in  force,  although  practi- 
cally inoperative,  until,  in  the  case  of  O' Daily  v.  The 
State  (9  Ind.  494),  Nov.  27,  1857,  the  court  unanimously 
pronounced  the  law  void,  but  assigned  no  reason  for  its 
opinion. 

In  Beebe's  case  Judge  Perkins  delivered  the  opinion  of 
the  court  that  the  act  of  1855  was  void,  and  Judge  David- 
son concurred  with  him.  From  this  opinion  I  make  the 
following  citations:  "The  taxing  power  of  a  State  is  un- 
limited, and  hence  may  be  exercised  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  prohibit  particular  pursuits;  but  an  enactment  of  such 
description  has  none  of  the  features  of  a  formal  prohibi- 
1  Beebe  v.  The  State,  6  Ind.  501. 


AN   EFFORT   AT    PROHIBITION.  309 

tory  law,  for  it  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  taxed 
pursuit  is  to  exist  and  not  cease.  .  .  .  The  legislature 
cannot  take  the  property,  the  liquors  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual, if  they  are  property,  when  not  needed  for  puljlic 
purposes,  and  then  only  upon  compensation.  But  if  the 
legislature  cannot  deprive  a  single  citizen  of  his  property, 
can  it,  by  a  general  law,  deprive  all  the  citizens  of  theirs? 
.  ,  .  Can  it,  by  a  general  laAV,  annihilate  the  entire  prop- 
erty in  liquors  in  the  State?  .  .  .  We  deny  that  the  leg- 
islature can  enlarge  its  powers  over  property  or  pursuits 
by  declaring  them  nuisances,  or  by  enacting  a  definition  of 
a  nuisance  that  will  cover  them.  Wliatever  it  has  a  right 
by  the  Constitution  to  prohibit  or  confiscate,  it  may  thus 
deal  with,  without  first  declaring  the  matter  a  nuisance ; 
and  whatever  it  has  not  a  right  by  the  Constitution  to  pro- 
hibit and  confiscate,  it  cannot  thus  deal  witli,  even  though 
it  first  declare  it  a  nuisance.  .  .  .  The  legislature  has  no 
more  right  to  violate  the  Constitution,  under  the  guise  of  a 
regulation  of  commerce,  than  by  a  statute  literally  in  con- 
flict with  it." 

Judge  Stuart,  who  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  agreed  that 
"the  agency  feature  and  the  several  parts  of  the  law  relat- 
ing to  manufacture  were  unconstitutional."  He  did  not 
believe  that  property  rights  are  superior  to  the  laws,  nor 
that  they  are  violated  by  a  municipal  regulation  having 
for  its  object  the  peace,  safety,  and  well-being  of  societ}'. 
"It  is  conceded  that  the  State  has  the  power  to  regulate. 
.  .  .  Prohibition  itself  is  but  one  kind  of  regulation.  "  As 
to  the  substantial  identity  between  regvdation  and  prohibi- 
tion. Judge  Gookin  was  in  accord  with  Judge  Stuart;  the 
right  to  regulate  involved  the  right  to  prohibit.  If  the 
one  was  unconstitutional,  so  was  the  other  also. -^ 

This  decision  and  the  failure  of  tlie  General  Assembly 

1  As  to  this  point,  see  the  opinions  delivered  in  the  license  cases  by  the 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  5  Howard. 


310  LIQUOR  LAWS  IN   INDIANA. 

in  1857  to  enact  any  law  upon  the  subject  left  the  State 
in  a  peculiar  position  from  1855  to  1859.  The  traffic 
was  not  forbidden  by  statute,  neither  could  it  be  licensed, 
and  it  was  not  taxed.  The  law  of  nuisance  was  in  many 
instances  successfully  put  in  operation  for  the  suppression 
of  dramshops  here  and  there.  The  Supreme  Court  had 
at  various  times  ^  declared  disorderly  tippling-houses  to  be 
nuisances  and  liable  to  suppression  as  such.  It  is  said, 
by  a  prominent  opponent  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  Indiana, 
himself  a  prohibitionist,  that  the  traffic  never  gave  so  little 
offense  nor  did  so  little  injury  as  during  these  four  years 
of  legislative  silence  respecting  it. 

The  legislature,  having  been  driven  by  the  Supreme 
Court  to  abandon  its  preference,  first  for  local  option  and 
then  for  total  prohibition,  adopted,  in  1859,  an  "act  to  reg- 
ulate and  license "  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  under 
which  licenses  were  granted  by  the  boards  of  county  com- 
missioners. The  applicant  was  required  to  publish  notice 
of  his  intention  at  least  twenty  days  in  advance  of  the 
meeting  of  the  board,  and  every  inhabitant  of  the  town- 
ship was  privileged  to  file  a  remonstrance  with  the  board, 
in  writing,  assigning  reasons  therefor.  This  act  was  sus- 
tained.^ It  was  so  amended  in  1861  as  to  authorize  re- 
monstrants in  any  township,  who  might  feel  themselves 
aggrieved  by  the  county  commissioners,  to  take  an  appeal 
to  the  Circuit  Court  or  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the 
county. 

There  Avas  no  further  change  in  the  law  for  a  dozen 
years,  when,  in  1873,  an  act  was  passed,  commonly  known 
as  "the  Baxter  law,"  which  forbade  the  granting  of  license 
in  any  case  where  the  applicant  did  not  file  a  petition 
signed  by  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  the  township, 

1  Notably  in  flift  c.ise  of  Bepley  r.  The  State,  4  Ind.  264,  in  which  it  was 
held  that  proof  of  disorderly  conduct  is  unnecessary  it  the  fact  is  proved 
of  sale  without  license. 

2  Thomasson  v.  The  State,  15  Ind.  449. 


THE    BAXTER    LAW,  311 

incorporated  town,  or  ward  (if  in  a  city),  as  shown  by  the 
vote  at  the  last  previous  election.  All  places  where  intox- 
icating liquor  was  sold  in  violation  of  the  act  were  to  be 
"shut  up  and  abated  as  public  nuisances."  Every  dram- 
shop was  to  be  closed  from  nine  o'clock  at  night  until 
six  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Liquor-sellers  responsible  in 
whole  or  part  for  the  intoxication  of  any  customer  were 
liable  to  pay  compensation  for  the  care  of  such  customer 
until  sober.  Relatives,  employers,  and  other  persons  in- 
jured in  person  or  property  or  means  of  support,  on  account 
of  the  intoxication  or  habitual  intoxication  of  any  person, 
were  given  the  right  to  bring  an  action  for  damages  against 
both  the  dealer  and  the  owner  of  the  premises  occupied, 
including  exemplary  damages.  Judgments  for  damages 
might  be  enforced  without  benefit  from  the  valuation  or 
appraisement  laws. 

The  constitutionality  of  this  act  was  attacked  before  the 
Supreme  Court,  i  on  the  triple  ground  that  it  provided  for 
a  direct  intervention  of  the  people  in  the  making  and  ex- 
ecuting of  a  law ;  that  the  taking  effect  of  the  act  was  made 
to  depend  upon  a  popular  choice;  and  that  it  was  local  and 
special  in  its  operation.  In  other  words,  the  objection  to 
it  relied  upon  for  its  overthrow  was  its  local  option  fea- 
ture. The  Supreme  Court,  it  will  be  remembered,  had 
refused  to  allow  a  formal  vote  to  be  taken,  in  any  minor 
political  division  of  the  State,  upon  the  question  of  license 
or  no  license.  But  in  the  present  instance  the  court  held 
that  "  the  petition  of  an  applicant  for  a  permit,  aided  by 
his  co-petitioners,  so  far  from  being  an  exercise  of  legisla- 
tive authority,  really  assi;mes  that  the  law  has  been  enacted 
and  is  already  in  force ;  otherwise  there  would  be  no  author- 
ity for  such  application  and  petition."  The  signing  of  a 
petition  was  held  to  be  not  an  administrative  act.  The 
act  was  held  to  be  a  general  act,  in  force  and  operation  in 

1  In  the  case  of  Groesch  v.  The  State,  42  Ind.  547. 


312  LIQUOR   LAWS   IN   INDIANA. 

all  parts  of  the  State.  It  was  therefore  sustained.  It 
was,  however,  repealed  in  1875  ^  by  an  act  said  to  have 
been  framed  by  the  attorney  of  the  liquor  league. 

This  act,  which  was  substantially  a  reenactment  of  a 
statute  of  1859,  retaining  a  few  added  provisions  contained 
in  the  law  of  1873,  was  subsequently  embodied  in  the 
Kevised  Statutes  of  1881,  and  is  still  in  force.  The  power 
to  grant  license  is  vested  in  the  county  boards,  after  publi- 
cation for  twenty  days,  by  the  applicant,  of  his  intention. 
The  right  of  remonstrance,  before  vested  in  any  "  inhab- 
itant," is  by  this  act  restricted  to  any  "voter."  There  is 
no  longer  any  right  of  appeal  from  the  action  of  the  county 
board.  The  color  line,  which  formerly  prevented  any  but 
white  male  inhabitants  from  engaging  in  the  traffic,  is 
abolished.  The  fee  for  a  general  license  is  $100,  for  a 
beer  license  $50,  to  be  paid  into  the  county  school  fund; 
cities  or  incorporated  towns  may  charge  $100  in  addition. 
(The  amount  which  cities  and  towns  may  lawfully  charge 
has  since  been  increased  to  $250.)  The  dealer  gives  a 
bond  of  $2,000  to  secure  the  payment  of  both  fines  and 
civil  damages.  The  term  of  license  is  one  year.  The  sale 
of  liquor  to  minors,  to  persons  in  a  state  of  intoxication, 
and  to  habitual  drunkards,  is  forbidden.  The  penalty  for 
most  violations  of  the  act  was  by  the  original  act  a  simple 
fine;  but  the  sale  of  adulterated  liquors,  or  by  persons 
not  licensed,  was  punishable  also  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  not  less  than  thirty  days  nor  more  than  six 
months ;  and  a  second  conviction  for  sale  on  Sunday  or  any 
holiday  or  day  when  an  election  is  held  involved  forfeiture 
of  license  as  a  part  of  the  judgment  of  the  court.  A  dis- 
orderly house  may  be  declared  a  nuisance,  and  the  keeper 
of  the  same  is  liable  to  forfeit  his  license.  Jurisdiction  to 
try  ofi'enses,  under  the  act,  is  in  the  justices  of  the  peace, 

1  The  section  makinfj  the  illegal  sale  of  liquor  a  nuisance  was  held  to 
be  constitutional  in  McLaughlin  v.  The  State,  45  Ind.  338. 


THE    NICHOLSON   LAW.  313 

who  can,  however,  impose  no  penalty  higher  than  a  fine 
of  $25;  if  the  justice  regards  this  as  inadequate,  he  can  re- 
quire the  offender  to  appear  before  the  circuit  court,  which 
has  also  indejjendent  concurrent  jurisdiction  in  liquor  cases. 

When,  in  1881,  the  legislature  adopted  the  Eevised 
Statutes,  the  provision  making  a  disorderly  drinking-house 
a  public  nuisance  was  stricken  out  by  the  revisers,  also  the 
penalty  of  forfeiture  of  license. 

The  much-discussed  Kicholson  act  had  its  origin  in  the 
needs  of  the  city  of  Indianapolis.  At  the  municipal  elec- 
tion held  in  Indianapolis  under  its  new  (1891)  charter,  the 
Republican  candidate  for  mayor  was  elected  by  a  majority 
of  about  3,000,  upon  a  platform  which  pledged  him  to  a 
strict  enforcement  of  the  laws,  and  upon  his  personal  pledge 
to  suppress  gambling  and  the  illicit  sale  of  liquor.  The 
Democratic  majority  at  the  last  previous  election  had  been 
about  3,000,  Among  the  reasons  for  this  change  in  public 
sentiment  was  the  fact  that  under  the  Democratic  adminis- 
tration the  town  had  been  "run  wide  open,"  and  the  citi- 
zens were  not  pleased  with  the  results.  The  new  mayor 
and  his  board  of  public  safety  selected  for  the  office  of 
superintendent  of  police  a  gentleman  of  known  character 
and  executive  ability,  in  independent  financial  circum- 
stances, of  large  business  experience,  who  was  heartily  in 
sympathy  with  the  purpose  of  the  mayor.  The  suppres- 
sion of  open  liquor-selling  on  Sundays  and  at  the  prohib- 
ited hours  was  complete.  But  at  first  the  only  prac- 
tical metliod  by  which  such  sale  could  be  stopped  was  the 
placing  of  a  regular  or  special  policeman,  in  uniform  or 
in  plain  clothes,  in  every  saloon  known  or  suspected  to  be 
in  the  habit  of  violating  the  law ;  this  was  necessarily  an 
expensive  system.  The  primary  purpose  of  the  Nicholson 
bill  was  merely  to  render  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibi- 
tory sections  of  the  license  law  of  1875  more  easy  and 
certain,    by  removing,   at  all  prohibited  hours,   every  ob- 


314  LIQUOR   LAWS   IN   INDIANA. 

struction  calculated  to  prevent  the  inspection  of  saloons 
from  the  street  by  the  police  and  by  the  public. 

This  much-discussed  law,  which  passed  the  Senate  by  a 
vote  of  thirty-nine  to  nine,  and  the  House  by  seventy-five 
to  twenty,  and  was  signed  by  the  governor  March  11, 
1895,  was  the  response  made  by  the  General  Assembly  to 
an  unusually  large  number  of  memorials  and  petitions  in 
its  favor,  said  to  have  been  signed  by  75,000  or  80,000 
voters,  and  it  probably  represents  the  sentiment  of  a  major- 
ity of  the  citizens  of  Indiana.  It  is  entitled  "An  act  to 
better  regulate  and  restrict  the  sale,"  etc. 

By  its  provisions  the  retailing  of  liquor  must  be  done  in 
a  room  on  the  ground  floor  or  in  a  basement,  fronting  the 
street,  and  separated  from  any  other  business  except  the 
sale  of  cigars;  no  music  nor  amusement  shall  be  permitted 
in  the  room,  the  whole  of  which  must  be  visible  from  the 
highway ;  entering  the  saloon  by  any  but  the  proprietor  and 
his  family  is  forbidden  during  the  hours  it  is  required  to 
be  closed,  and  permitting  any  person  so  to  enter  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  the  violation  of  the  law.  Upon  proof  of 
violation  of  the  act,  the  court  may,  and  for  a  third  convic- 
tion must,  revoke  the  dealer's  license.  Only  one  license 
can  be  given  to  one  person,  who  must  be  the  owner  of  the 
business.  A  majority  of  the  voters  in  any  township  or 
ward  may  file  a  written  remonstrance  against  granting  a 
license  to  any  applicant,  and  such  a  remonstrance  makes 
void  any  license  granted  to  that  applicant  at  any  time  for 
ten  years.  Druggists  are  forbidden  to  sell,  in  quantities 
less  than  a  quart,  except  by  order  of  a  physician. 

The  section  relating  to  remonstrances,  which  is  substan- 
tially borrowed  from  the  act  of  1832,  is  evidently  designed 
to  have  the  efi"ect  of  engrafting  into  the  law  the  principle 
of  local  option  in  the  form  in  Avhich  ^  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Indiana  has  decided  it  to  be  constitutional,  but  further 
1  In  the  case  of  Groesch  v.  The  State,  cited  above. 


THE   NICHOLSON   LAW.  315 

modified   to  require  a  separate  remonstrance  against  each 
applicant  for  license. 

In  considering  the  practical  effect  of  the  law,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  distinguish  between  the  influence  upon  trade  of  the 
police  regulations,  especially  as  to  the  prohibition  of  games 
and  of  screens,  and  that  of  the  remonstrance.  The  remon- 
strance can  have  no  other  effect  than  to  close  the  saloons  in 
many  localities,  where  public  opinion  is  adverse  to  them. 
The  remonstrance  is  a  more  effective  weapon  than  the  re- 
quirement that  the  applicant  shall  secure  the  signatures 
to  his  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  voters.^  The  liquor 
interest  asserts  that  many  persons  sign  these  remonstrances, 
not  from  conviction,  but  under  constraint  or  persuasion, 
which  is  probably  true.  This  is  the  feature  of  the  Nich- 
olson law  to  which  the  brewers  and  distillers  —  manufac- 
turers—  most  strenuously  object. 

While  the  business  interests  of  the  manufacturer  and 
those  of  the  dealer  are  in  a  general  way  identical,  there  are 
nevertheless  shades  of  difference  between  them.  The  ob- 
jections of  the  dealer  to  the  Nicholson  law  are  (1)  that  it 
renders  it  practicable  to  lay  an  embargo  on  the  sale  of 
liquor  upon  Sundays,  holidays,  and  after  eleven  o'clock 
at  night;  and  (2)  that  it  confines  him  to  the  single  occu- 
pation of  liquor-selling,  and  deprives  him  of  the  profit  of 
shows  and  games,  which  retain  customers  in  the  saloon. 
A  barkeeper  explained  to  me  that  the  proprietor  of  a  saloon 
where  he  was  employed  used  to  throw  dice  for  cigars  with 
"the  boys"  —  "anything  to  keep  them  here"  —  and  had 
a  room  upstairs,  where  they  could  play  cards;  but  now  a 
man  comes  in,  takes  his  drink,  goes  away,  and  they  never 
see  him  again.  He  estimated  the  loss  of  income  at  eight 
or  ten  dollars  a  day  —  in  this  case  a  fatal  falling  off. 

Another  man,  who  now  has  a  "  temperance  "  saloon,  where 

1  I  am  told  that  in  several  instances  merchants  refusing  to  sign  have 
been  threatened  with  loss  of  trade. 


316  LIQUOR   LAWS   IN   INDIANA. 

only  "soft  drinks"  are  for  sale,  said  that  he  had  to  give 
up  his  liquor  trade  or  his  games,  and  that  he  found  the 
games  the  more  profitable  of  the  two.  No  doubt,  under 
the  operation  of  a  license  law,  the  saloon  business  is  greatly- 
overdone,  and  many,  who  are  encouraged  to  go  into  it  by 
the  expectation  of  profit,  are  doomed  to  become  bankrupt, 
in  spite  of  all  they  can  do  to  prevent  it. 

The  manufacturers  are  not  in  sympathy  with  the  dealers 
in  their  desire  to  have  games  of  chance  played  in  dram- 
shops. All  that  is  lost  in  gaming  is  diverted  from  the 
pocket  of  the  manufacturer  to  some  other  man's  pocket. 
The  greater  part  of  this  money  is  furnished  by  poor  men, 
who  cannot  afford  to  indulge  both  propensities,  and  the 
net  result  is  a  diminution  of  the  manufacturer's  profits.^ 

1  The  Cincinnati  Commercial  Gazette  published,  August  10,  1895,  a  dis- 
patch from  Indianapolis  containing  a  statement  by  Mr.  Albert  Lieber, 
president  of  the  Indianapolis  Brewing  Company',  vice-president  of  the 
State  Brewers'  Association,  and  chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of 
that  organization,  in  which  the  assertion  was  made  that  of  10,000  saloons 
in  Indiana,  2,500  would  be  compelled  to  close  in  consequence  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Nicholson  bill.  These  saloons,  he  said,  consumed  on  an  aver- 
age two  kegs  of  beer  a  day;  the  reduction  in  the  consumption  of  beer, 
therefore,  would  be  at  least  1,500,000  kegs  per  annum.  The  strict  en- 
forcement of  the  requirement  to  close  on  certain  days  and  at  certain  hours 
would  decrease  the  annual  consumption  by  another  million  kegs.  The 
output  of  the  breweries  in  Indiana  was  440,000  barrels;  an  equal  number 
of  barrels  is  imported  from  the  neighboring  States.  The  price  of  beer  per 
barrel  is  S6.50,  making  the  annual  expenditure  for  beer  in  round  numbers 
$5,720,000.  One  fourth  of  this,  he  thought,  or  about  5?1, 430,000,  would  be 
lost  to  the  trade;  the  loss  to  the  Indiana  brewers  would  be  $715,000.  The 
loss  in  rent  at  $40  per  month  would  be  $1,200,000;  in  wages  of  saloon 
proprietors  and  emplo3'ees,  at  $2  per  day,  $5,400,000;  in  revenue  to  the 
government,  at  $100  to  the  county,  $250  to  the  city,  and  $50  to  the 
United  States,  $1,000,000;  total,  $8,"315,000.  Of  this  amount,  the  school 
fund  would  lose  $875,000.  He  estimated  the  average  cost  of  saloon  fix- 
tures at  $600,  which  would  be  rendered  valueless  —  an  indirect  loss  of 
another  $1,500,000.  There  would  be  also  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
the  unemployed.  He  did  not  touch  the  question  of  value  of  the  grain 
converted  into  beer,  and  the  effect  upon  the  farmer.  The  distiller,  he 
thought,  would  be  comparatively  unaffected.  (The  rivalry  between  malt 
and  spirituous  beverages  is  such  that  what  the  brewer  loses  the  distiller 
may  gain.  The  uniform  effect  of  prohibition,  under  any  guise  and  to  any 
extent,  is  to  increase  the  sale  of  whiskey,  which  is  more  portable,  more 
easily  concealed,  and  more  available  for  illicit  traffic.) 


THE   WOKKING  OF  THE   LAW.  817 

The  legislature  passed  another  hill,  approved  March  9, 
1895,  called  the  Moore  hill,  which  is  possibly  even  more 
objectionable  to  distillers  than  the  Nicholson  bill.  It  is 
an  act  amending  the  general  municipal  incorporation  act, 
and  it  confers  upon  common  councils  the  right  to  "re- 
strain ...  all  places  where  intoxicating  liquors  are  kept 
for  sale,  to  be  used  in  and  upon  the  premises."  In  re- 
straining such  places  they  may  exclude  sales  from  the 
suburban  or  residence  portion  of  such  city,  and  confine  the 
places  where  sales  may  be  made  to  the  business  portions 
of  such  city;  they  may  direct  the  arrangement  and  con- 
struction of  the  doors,  windows,  and  openings  of  the  par- 
ticular room  in  the  building  occupied,  also  the  arrange- 
ment and  construction  of  the  bar  kept  therein,  and  the 
interior  arrangement  and  construction  of  such  room;  they 
may  direct  what  games  may  be  carried  on  therein;  and 
they  may  forbid  the  keeping  or  use  of  wine-rooms. 

The  police  provision  of  the  Nicholson  bill  directing  the 
removal  of  partitions  and  screens  has  been  enforced  in  some 
towns,  in  others  not:  the  law  is  notably  disregarded,  for 
instance,  in  Terre  Haute.  In  Indianapolis  it  has  been 
well  enforced,  as  I  can  testify  from  personal  experience, 
so  far  as  relates  to  saloons;  but  its  enforcement  has  to 
some  extent  increased  the  illicit  traffic  in  liquors  carried  on 
in  drug-stores,  especially  during  the  prohibited  days  and 
hours.  The  detection  of  this  traffic  is,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  difficult.  The  partition  which  conceals  the  pre- 
scription case  in  the  rear  of  the  shop  is  a  complete  barrier 
to  observation.  It  is  usually  inclosed  by  two  openings, 
one  on  each  side.  A  detective  cannot  go  behind  this  case 
until  his  business  is  known;  and  if  admitted,  as  he  enters 
by  one  opening,  the  man  who  has  had  his  drink  passes  out 
by  the  other,  leaving  no  evidence  behind  him  of  the  char- 
acter of  his  purchase.  In  some  drug-stores  there  is  a  pri- 
vate  office   or  warehouse   in   the  rear   of   the   prescription 


318  LIQUOR  LAWS   IN   INDIANA. 

case.  Sometimes  a  square  closet  is  substituted  for  the 
ordinary  form  of  prescription  case;  the  druggist  enters  it 
by  a  closed  door,  pours  out  a  dram,  passes  out,  and  the 
customer  then  takes  his  place,  closing  the  door  after  him, 
when  he  is  alone,  so  that  there  can  be  no  witness  of  his 
actions.  The  fact  that  malt  and  spirituous  liquors  are  ille- 
gally sold  by  druggists  is  notorious.  The  only  way  effect- 
ually to  put  a  stop  to  such  sale  would  be  to  station  a  j^olice- 
man  in  every  suspected  pharmacy,  which  cannot  legally  be 
done,  since  they  are  not  licensed. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that  the  enforcement  of  the  Sunday  law 
in  Indianapolis  is  rendered  more  easy  by  the  construction 
put  upon  it  by  the  police,  under  which  they  do  not  inter- 
fere with  the  meetings  of  German  societies,  such  as  saen- 
gerbunds  and  turnvereins,  if  organized  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  act,  and  therefore  not  with  the  purpose  of  evading 
it,  so  long  as  beer  is  there  dispensed  to  their  own  members 
and  not  offered  for  sale  to  the  public.  Picnic  parties,  with 
beer,  of  which  in  the  summer  there  are  many,  are  not  sup- 
pressed beyond  the  two-mile  limit.  ^  There  is  not  in  or 
about  Indianapolis  any  large  beer  garden,  properly  so  called. 

The  State  has  evidently  before  it  a  period  of  temperance 
agitation  stretching  through  a  long  term  of  years,  in  which 
all  the  efforts  that  have  been  made,  in  other  States,  to  curb 
the  power  of  the  liquor  traffic  will  be  put  forth,  with 
varying  degrees  of  success,  according  to  the  strength  of  the 
two  opposing  forces  in  different  localities,  and  the  wisdom 
or  folly  of  their  respective  positions  and  movements.  The 
anti-saloon  fight  is  led  by  the  Good  Citizens'  League,  organ- 
ized in  1888,  which  is  forming  branch  leagues  everywhere. 

1  The  new  charter  gives  the  city  jurisdiction  over  the  sale  of  liquor 
outside  the  cit}' limits,  within  a  distance  of  four  miles  ;  under  this  pro- 
vision saloons  within  two  miles  from  the  boundary  of  Indianapolis  are 
taxed  ;  but  the  board  of  safety  exercises  police  jurisdiction  within  the 
full  legal  limit  of  four  miles  —  only,  however,  in  special  cases  and  by 
express  order  of  the  board. 


THE   MISSOUEI   LOCAL    OPTION   LAW. 

A    STUDY    OF    THE    DRINK    PROBLEM    IN    ST,   LOUIS. 

To  understand  the  working  of  liquor  laws  in  St.  Louis, 
and  especially  to  understand  the  failure  to  enforce  the  laws 
in  certain  respects,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the 
history  of  the  city  and  the  composition  of  its  population. 

The  original  settlement,  in  17G4,  was  made  by  French- 
men from  New  Orleans,  who  established  here  an  Indian 
trading-post.  The  first  town  charter  was  granted  in  1809 
by  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  District  of  St. 
Louis,  under  the  authority  of  an  act  of  the  Territory  of 
Louisiana  in  1808.  The  early  French  influence  is  still 
felt  in  various  ways.  Three  fourths  of  the  present  popu- 
lation is  foreign-born  or  of  immediate  foreign  parentage, 
principally  German.  The  Germans,  indeed,  constitute  nearly 
or  quite  one  half  the  inhabitants.  The  architecture  of  the 
houses,  the  style  of  the  front  yards,  and  the  attention  to 
the  culture  of  the  grape,  in  many  quarters,  particularly  in 
the  northern  and  southern  suburbs,  clearly  indicate  the 
prevailing  nationality.  German  habits  have  deeply  im- 
pressed the  life  of  the  community,  particularly  in  respect 
to  Sunday  observance  and  to  the  use  of  wine  and  beer. 
The  first  great  influx  of  Germans  was  after  the  revolution 
of  1848,  and  many  of  these  immigrants  Avere  freethinkers 
in  religion.  At  present,  Protestant,  Catholic,  and  ration- 
alistic Germany  are  all  well  represented.  Indeed,  the 
valley  of  the  Mississippi  is  the  chosen  home  of  German 
Catholicism  in  America. 

In  one  particular  the  composition  of  the  population  is 


320  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

unique.  St.  Louis  is  the  only  city  where  the  old  southern 
element  and  the  foreign  element  have  been  brought  in  large 
numbers  face  to  face;  and  this  circumstance  accounts  for 
much  that  is  peculiar  in  the  people  and  their  institutions. 

The  distribution  of  population  is  shown  on  the  accom- 
panying ward  map. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  city  is  divided  into  two  parts  by 
Grand  Avenue  (or  the  old  city  limits  before  the  annexation 
of  the   outlying   country  in  1876),  which   is  about  three 
miles  west  of  the  river  at  its  farthest  point.      All  beyond 
this  avenue  is  new ;  all  between  it  and  the  river  is  regarded 
as  "down  town."     Between  Grand  Avenue  and  the  river 
are  three  distinct  zones,  about  a  mile  each  in  width,  sepa- 
rated from   each   other  by   Twelfth   Street   and  Jefferson 
Avenue.      Of  these,  the  central  zone  is  the  most  populous; 
that  next  the  river  contains  almost  as  many  inhabitants, 
and  the  outer  zone  somewhat  less.      Seven  eighths  of  the 
population   is   found   below  Grand  Avenue,    and   occupies 
less  than  one  half  the  territory  of  the  city.      There  is  also 
a   condensation   of   the   population   in   the   direction   from 
north  to  south.     The  city  is  sixteen  miles  long ;  but  nearly 
three  fourths  of  the  residents  occupy  a  strip  extending  from 
east  to  west  which  is  not  more  than  three  miles  in  width, 
and  more  than   one  half   of  them  are  found  in  a  similar 
strip  not  i^re  than  two  miles  wide.      There  is  a  district 
lying  east  of  Jefferson  Avenue,  and  extending  from  Cass 
Avenue  on  the  north  to  Park  Avenue  on  the  south,  or  a 
little  less  than  two  miles  square,  in  which  one  third  of  the 
people  live.      In  this  district  are  most  of  the  wholesale 
and  retail  trading-houses,  the  railway  stations,  the  princi- 
pal manufactories,    the  hotels,   the  government   buildings, 
some  of  the  best  and  some  of  the  worst  residences,  and  the 
bulk  of  the  poverty  and  vice  of  the  city.      Out  of  it  are 
moving  nearly  all  who  are  able  to  afford  to  live  elsewhere, 
and   signs   "  For  rent "  are  seen  by  the    hundreds.     The 


322  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

churches  have  nearly  all  gone,  and  even  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association.  This  is  the  portion  of  the  city 
which  demands  the  most  careful  study.  It  contains  the 
"slums."  These  press  upon  the  heart  of  the  city  and 
reach  down  until  they  almost  touch  the  cathedral,  the 
court-house,  the  best  hotels,  and  some  of  the  finest  of  the 
buildings  erected  for  business  and  office  use.  The  increase 
in  the  value  of  land  in  this  region  will  probably  drive  them 
back  sooner  or  later,  but  the  proximity  of  the  railroad 
tracks  tends  to  delay  this  desired  consummation. 

Politically,  St.  Louis  is  very  evenly  divided  between 
the  two  leading  parties,  with  a  slight  preponderance  of 
Republicans.  In  respect  of  religious  tendencies,  the  house- 
to-house  census  annually  taken,  by  voluntary  visitors,  who 
reach  about  one  third  of  the  population,  shows  one  third 
of  those  reported  to  be  Catholics.  Of  the  non-Catholics, 
perhaps  a  small  majority  are  nominally  Protestants  and  the 
rest  are  indifferent  to  sects  and  creeds.  A  comparison  of 
maps  showing  the  religious  and  political  characters  of  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  city  reveals  a  certain  relation  between 
the  two.  The  Republican  sections,  particularly  where  the 
native  American  element  predominates,  tend  to  be  Protest- 
ant; and  the  Catholic  sections,  particularly  where  the  Irish 
element  is  in  the  ascendency,  tend  to  be  Democratic.  The 
business  centre,  and  the  better  residence  district,  directly 
west  of  it,  are  Protestant  and  Republican.  They  are  also 
largely  American. 

THE    PROVISIONS    OF    THE    LAW. 

The  liquor  law  of  the  State  of  Missouri  was  revised  in 
1891.  The  general  principle  upon  which  it  is  based  is  local 
option. 

The  question  "for"  or  "against  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors "  cannot  be  submitted  oftener  than  once  in  four 
years,  but  once  in  four  years,  or  less  often,  a  vote  may  be 


THE   PROVISIONS   OF  THE   LAW.  323 

ordered  upon  petition  of  one  tenth  of  the  qualified  electors. 
Electors  in  any  incorporated  town  of  2,500  inhabitants 
or  more  may  not  vote  for  or  against  the  sale  of  liquor  in 
the  county  at  large.  The  question  of  sale  in  the  towns  is 
distinct  from  that  of  sale  in  the  rural  districts. 

The  sale  of  liquors,  in  quantities  less  than  three  gallons, 
without  license,  is  forbidden  in  counties  and  towns  which 
have  voted  against  license,  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  $300 
to  $1,000,  or  by  imprisonment  from  six  to  twelve  months, 
or  both;  but  in  counties  which  have  voted  in  favor  of 
license,  the  penalty  is  a  simple  fine  of  $40  to  $200. 

Licenses  are  granted  by  the  county  court;  but  in  cities 
having  a  population  of  200,000  or  more  (St.  Louis  being 
the  one  such  city),  by  a  special  ofiicer  known  as  an  excise 
commissioner. 

The  applicant  for  a  license  must  be  a  law-abiding,  as- 
sessed tax-paying  male  citizen  above  twenty-one  years  of 
age.  With  his  written  application  he  must  file  a  petition; 
this  petition,  if  in  a  city  containing  2,000  inhabitants  or 
more,  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  assessed  tax-> 
paying  citizens  owning  property  in  the  block  or  square 
in  which  the  dramshop  is  to  be  kept;  if  in  a  city  of  less 
than  2,000  inhabitants,  or  in  any  incorporated  town  or 
municipal  township,  it  must  be  signed  by  a  majority  of 
the  assessed  tax-paying  citizens,  both  in  the  block  or 
square  and  also  in  the  town  or  township.  (The  property 
assessed  may  be  real  or  personal.)  The  court  or  the  excise 
commissioner  cannot  grant  a  license  unless  this  petition 
filed  is  signed  by  a  majority  as  required.  If  it  is  so  signed, 
he  may  grant  or  withhold  it  at  his  discretion  —  except 
when  the  petition  is  signed  by  two  thirds  of  the  tax-pay- 
ers; then  he  has  no  discretion,  but  must  grant  it. 

The  petition  is  in  force  for  one  year  from  the  date  of 
the  granting  of  the  first  license  thereon,  and  no  longer; 
and  no  license  can  be  in  force  longer  than  the  petition 


324  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

upon  which   it  is  granted.      Any  license  which   may  be 
granted  on  any  other  basis  is  void. 

The  applicant  must  hie  a  bond,  in  the  sum  of  $2,000, 
with  two  resident  sureties,  to  be  approved  by  the  court, 
that  he  will  keep  an  orderly  house,  and  that  he  will  not 
sell  or  give  liquor  to  minors  without  the  written  consent 
of  their  parents  or  guardians,  and  that  he  will  pay  all  fines 
and  forfeitures  adjudged  against  him  on  account  of  any 
violation  of  the  dramshop  act. 

The  price  of  a  license  is  a  tax,  payable  every  six 
months,  of  not  less  than  $50  nor  more  than  $200  for  state 
purposes,  and  not  less  than  $250  nor  more  than  $400  for 
county  purposes.  The  court  which  grants  the  license  de- 
termines the  amount.  Dramshop- keepers  are  further  re- 
quired to  pay  an  ad  valorem,  tax  as  merchants,  once  in 
six  months,  upon  the  full  amount  of  liquors  received  by 
them  during  the  six  months  previous. 

Two  thirds  of  the  revenue  derived  by  counties  from  this 
source  is  set  apart  for  building  roads  or  (in  the  smaller 
counties)  for  the  payment  of  municipal  indebtedness. 

The  county  collector  is  charged  with  the  amount  of  the 
tax  levied  upon  each  license.  He  must  collect  the  same 
without  delay;  and  until  the  applicant  presents  the  collec- 
tor's receipt  for  the  amount  specified,  in  full,  the  license 
cannot  issue. 

It  is  made  the  duty  of  the  court  to  revoke  the  license  of 
any  dramshop-keeper  shown,  to  its  satisfaction,  to  have  been 
guilty  of  keeping  a  disorderly  house.  The  court  is  forbid- 
den to  issue  a  license  to  any  person  whose  license  has  once 
been  revoked,  or  who  has  ever  been  convicted  of  violating 
any  provision  of  the  dramshop  act. 

The  Revised  Ordinances  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis  are  in 
substantial  accord  with  the  statutes,  but  contain  some 
additional  provisions.  On  the  first  Monday  of  every 
month  a  list  of    the    licenses  granted  during  the   month 


BREACHES   OF   THE   LAW,  325 

preceding  must  be  furnished  to  the  comptroller.  On  the 
same  day  the  police  must  report  to  the  chief  of  police  all 
dramshops  open  in  their  respective  districts  and  whether 
they  are  kept  in  an  orderly  manner.  These  reports  must 
be  by  the  chief  transmitted  to  the  collector  (excise  commis- 
sioner). 

No  immoral  or  obscene  paintings  or  pictures  are  allowed 
to  be  exhibited  in  any  saloon.  No  lewd  woman  or  woman 
reputed  to  be  immoral  can  be  employed  in  any  saloon  as  a 
bartender  or  carrier  of  beer  or  any  other  article,  either  by 
day  or  night,  or  to  sing  or  dance  in  a  lewd  or  indecent 
manner.  The  opening  of  any  saloon  within  five  hundred 
feet  of  either  of  the  five  principal  city  parks  is  forbidden. 
No  license  can  be  granted  for  any  dramshop  in  any  house 
of  ill-fame.  The  establishment  of  such  a  house  in  any 
building  where  there  is  a  dramshop  renders  the  license 
alread}^  granted  null  and  void. 

Any  three  reputable  property  owners  may  prefer  to  the 
mayor  a  sworn  complaint  of  disorderly  conduct  in  any 
saloon.  The  mayor  must  at  once  cite  the  dramshop-keeper 
complained  of  to  appear  before  him.  If  satisfied  of  the 
truth  of  the  statements  made,  he  must  revoke  his  license 
and  order  his  prosecution  by  the  attorney  of  the  police 
court.      No  license  may  be  assigned  or  transferred. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  criminal  code  forbids  the 
adulteration  of  liquors,  and  their  sale  within  a  mile  of  any 
camp  or  field  meeting  for  religious  worship. 

EVASIONS    AND    BREACHES    OF    THE    LAW. 

The  question  of  the  observance  of  the  dramshop  act 
naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts:  first,  as  to  procur-- 
ing  license,  and,  second,  as  to  compliance  with  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  it  is  granted. 

The  only  valid  signatures  to  a  petition  for  a  license  are 
those  of  assessed  tax-payers;  that  is,  owners  of  real  estate 


326  THE    MISSOURI    LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

or  residents  owning  personal  property  upon  the  block  in 
which  the  dramshop  is  to  be  situated.  Minors  cannot 
sign,  but  their  guardians  must  sign  for  them.  The  latest 
annual  assessment  shows  the  names  of  the  tax-payers  in 
each  block,  and  unless  a  majority  of  their  names  is  attached 
to  a  petition  it  has  no  legal  value. 

Obviously  a  strict  construction  of  the  statute  would  pre- 
vent the  issue  of  a  license  to  keep  a  saloon  where  the  prop- 
erty pays  no  tax,  for  example,  in  a  public  park.  Yet 
there  is  a  licensed  dramshop  in  the  principal  park  —  Forest 
Park.  Its  issue  was  fought  upon  another  ground ;  namely, 
that  section  1433  of  the  Revised  City  Ordinances  provides 
that  "  no  saloon  shall  be  established,  opened,  or  located  in 
any  building  or  on  any  lot  of  ground  within  500  feet  of 
Forest  Park. "  But  the  council  authorized  the  issue,  hold- 
ing that  a  saloon  inside  a  park  is  not  within  500  feet  of  it. 
But  in  another  instance, — viz.,  the  Exposition  Building, 
which  stands  on  ground  belonging  to  the  city,  a  petition 
was  signed  by  some  of  the  stockholders,  the  cit}^  attorney 
gave  an  opinion  that  upon  its  face  the  petition  was  regu- 
lar, and  the  license  was  issued. 

In  the  case  of  private  property,  the  theory  of  the  law 
is  that  the  petition  shall  be  compared  with  the  city  assess- 
ment rolls,  but  the  practice  appears  to  have  been  to  assume 
that  the  petition  was  regular  if  it  was  not  opposed. 
"Where  opposition  is  anticipated,  the  steps  to  secure  signers 
are  as  quietly  taken  as  possible ;  and  if  the  license  is  once 
granted,  the  difficulty  of  annulling  it  is  greater  than  of 
preventing  its  issue.  Where  violent  and  persistent  oppo- 
sition has  been  made  to  the  establishment  of  a  saloon,  the 
means  taken  to  overcome  it  have  sometimes  been  ingenious. 
The  owners  of  a  well-known  beer  garden  were  unable  for  a 
long  time  to  secure  the  requisite  number  of  names  of  tax- 
payers, and  kept  open  without  license.  When  at  last  the 
municipal  authorities  were  pressed  to  close  this  place,  the 


THE   COLLECTOR.  327 

proprietors  opened  a  private  alley  in  the  rear  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  erected  a  row  of  tenements,  which  were  rented  to 
persons  who  would  sign  their  petition.  By  this  means 
they  succeeded  in  overcoming  the  majority  against  them. 
This  was  a  popular  resort  opened  many  years  ago,  before 
the  enactment  of  the  local  option  law.  But  expedients  of 
more  doubtful  propriety,  or  whose  illegality  is  not  a  matter 
of  reasonable  doubt,  have  been  used ;  and  through  the  com- 
plicity of  the  collector  with  the  li(;[uor  interest  dramshops 
have  been  forced  upon  localities  which  were  bitterly  op- 
posed to  them.  After  exhausting  every  other  means  of 
defeating  a  remonstrance  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  as- 
sessed tax-payers  upon  certain  blocks,  a  lot  belonging  to 
the  applicant  for  license  or  to  some  friend  has  been  subdi- 
vided, and  small  parcels  —  too  small  to  be  of  any  real  use 
or  value,  such  as  a  single  front  foot  —  have  been  deeded  to 
men  of  straw  or  to  members  of  the  firm  or  family,  to 
enable  them  to  add  their  names  to  the  petition.  These 
lots  are  known  as  "the  Lilliputian  lots." 

In  1891  and  1892  the  conduct  of  a  collector  whose  ar- 
bitrary methods  won  him  the  nickname  of  "The  Czar"  was 
investigated  by  the  City  Council,  and  two  unsuccessful 
attempts  made  to  have  the  grand  jury  indict  him.  He 
admitted  that  he  did  not  require  renewal  petitions  in  the 
German  quarters  of  the  city,  north  or  south  of  the  centre; 
he  said  that  they  did  not  know  what  it  is  to  object  to  a 
saloon,  and  would  not  know  a  remonstrance  from  the  man 
in  the  moon.  One  of  the  chief  grounds  of  the  investiga- 
tion was  the  fact  that,  while  the  city  collector  issued  about 
1,800  licenses,  the  number  of  paid  liquor  licenses  reported 
by  the  United  States  revenue  collector  was  2,600.  The 
collector's  explanation  was  that  the  United  States  collects 
from  houses  of  ])rostitution,  drug-stores,  clubs,  and  gro- 
ceries, which  do  not  take  out  dramshop  licenses.  After  the 
investigation  an  effort  was  made  to  pass  a  municipal  ordi- 


328  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

nance  restricting  the  power  of  the  collector  to  grant  licenses 
in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the  assessed  tax-payers  and 
compelling  him  to  exercise  more  diligence  in  collecting  the 
tax  imposed  upon  saloon-keepers;  but  it  was  defeated. 
The  upshot  of  all  this  crimination  and  struggle  was  that 
the  collector  was  reelected  by  an  increased  majority;  he 
outran  the  rest  of  his  ticket. 

The  fight  was  not  without  effect,  however,  upon  the  state 
legislature.  The  victorious  collector  was  and  is  a  Repub- 
lican in  politics.  The  legislature  of  Missouri  is  Demo- 
cratic. The  General  Assembly  legislated  him  out  of  office 
by  an  act  approved  March  17,  1893,  by  which  the  governor 
is  authorized  to  appoint  in  St.  Louis  a  commissioner  with 
exclusive  authority  to  grant  dramshop  licenses.  This 
commissioner  is  paid  by  fees,  and  out  of  the  fees  received 
by  him  he  must  meet  all  his  office  expenses.  None  of  the 
provisions  of  the  dramshop  act  is  modified  by  this  act. 
The  excise  commissioner  has  power  to  revoke  any  license 
issued  by  him,  if  the  recipient  violates  any  of  the  provi- 
sions of  the  dramshop  act. 

The  new  commissioner  was  appointed  on  the  21st  of 
June,  1893.  The  first  year's  collections  by  him  (omitting 
fees)  showed  a  gain  of  $185,295;  but  of  this  amount, 
$102,569  is  owing  to  a  change  in  the  state  tax,  which  was 
$50  a  year  for  each  license,  but  is  now  $100.  The  num- 
ber of  licensed  saloons  under  the  collector,  in  1891-92, 
was  1,870;  under  the  excise  commissioner,  in  1893-94,  it 
was  2,051. 

The  appointment  of  a  special  commissioner  by  the  gov- 
ernor, with  power  to  grant  and  revoke  liquor  licenses, 
tends  to  create  a  closer  political  connection  between  the 
state  admmistration  and  the  liquor  traffic  than  existed 
before. 

A.S  to  the  enforcement  of  the  few  police  restrictions  upon 
the  sale  of  liquor  in  this  city,  the  simple  fact  is  that  little 


CHAKACTER   OF   SALOONS.  329 

if  any  effort  is  made  to  enforce  them,  and  they  are  not 
enforced.  There  is  not  a  saloon  in  St.  Louis  which  is 
closed  on  Sunday,  except  at  the  will  of  the  proprietor. 
The  prohibition  to  sell  to  minors  without  the  written  con- 
sent of  their  parents  is  a  dead  letter.  There  is  an  im- 
mense "can"  trade  carried  on  by  the  saloons;  and  there 
is  no  part  of  the  city,  and  no  hour  of  the  day  or  evening, 
where  little  children,  mostly  girls,  may  not  be  seen  going 
to  and  from  dramshops  with  pails  of  beer.  Some  of  them 
are  scarcely  more  than  babes.  And  many  saloons  sell  to 
young  boys,  across  the  counter,  by  the  drink. 

The  prohibition  against  games  and  other  amusements  in 
dramshops  is  flagrantly  disregarded.  The  great  majority 
of  saloons  in  St.  Louis  are  furnished  with  round  or  square 
tables  and  armchairs  for  the  convenience  of  their  patrons. 
One  who  passes  by  can  often  see  card-playing  through  the 
open  door.  Many  of  them  have  also  billiard  and  pool 
tables,  in  direct  contravention  of  the  statute.  Some  have 
pianos  or  other  musical  instruments.  There  are  various 
descriptions  of  saloons;  e.  fj.  simple  bars,  bars  attached 
to  restaurants  or  eating- places,  bars  connected  with  pool  or 
billiard  rooms,  beer  gardens,  and  concert  saloons.  There 
are  several  sorts  of  beer  gardens.  Some  of  them  are 
merely  back  yards  in  the  rear  of  saloons,  on  the  same  lot; 
others  are  large,  and  approximate  the  character  of  private 
parks.  The  best  of  them  are  family  resorts,  where  all  the 
proprieties  of  life  are  as  strictly  observed  as  in  a  home; 
others  are  less  reputable.  Dancing  is  of  course  common 
at  all  such  places,  and  at  some  of  them  it  is  unrestrained. 
Many  saloons  have  a  separate  "ladies'  entrance,"  and  not 
infrequently  private  wine-rooms.  But  it  is  difficult  to 
say  whether  these  or  the  so-called  free  theatres  are  the  most 
objectionable,  from  a  moral  point  of  view.  The  latter 
are  entered  through  the  bar,  upon  payment  of  the  price  of 
a  drink,  which  need  not  be  more  than  five  cents,  and  a 


330  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION   LAW, 

drink   is  given  for  the  money.      At  the  farther  end  of  the 
room  is  a  cheap  stage.      The  ground  floor  is  occupied  hy 
chairs,  sometimes  by  chairs  and  tables.      Men  only  are  ad- 
mitted.     Stairways  connect  the  lower  floor  with  galleries 
above,    divided   into   stalls,    and   with   curtains    in    front, 
where   the    female   singers   and   dancers   employed   by  the 
proprietor  meet  and  drink  with   such  men    and    boys    as 
choose*  to  go  up  there.      They  are  a  sort  of  public  green- 
room,   and  the  conduct  and  conversation  are  what  might 
be  expected.      If   there  are  no  galleries,  a  place  is  ruled 
ofi"  and  partially  screened  at  one  side  of  the   room.      The 
performance  upon  the  stage  is  usually  cheap,  stupid,  and 
vulgar.       The  state  law  declares  that   a  dramshop-keeper 
shall   not   permit  any   wrestling  in  his  dramshop,    but  in 
front  of  a  popular  saloon  a  placard  was  recently  displayed 
announcing  a  wrestling  match  between  a  man  and  a  wo- 
man.     A  city  ordinance  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any 
dramshop-keeper  to  employ   lewd   women   as   singers  and 
dancers ;  but  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  character 
of  many  of  the   low   variety   actresses   upon   these  saloon 
stages.      There  is,    of  course,   no  official  censorship  of  the 
stage,  and  the  police  dislike  to  pronounce  judgment  upon 
the  indecency  of  a  performance  which  the  public  sees  fit 
to  patronize  and  encourage.      Several  years  ago,  the  Wo- 
man's Christian  Temperance  Union  undertook  to  suppress 
six   concert   saloons,    and  brought  them  before  the  grand 
jury.      An  indictment  was  found,    but   was   quashed,    be- 
cause it   did  not  allege  that  at  certain  times  the  women 
named  did  sing  and  dance  in  said  dramshop,  but  that  they 
were   employed  for   that    purpose.       But   it  is  questioned 
whether  any  indictment  can  be  framed  which  will  hold,  so 
long  as  the  Avomen  are  employed  under  cover  of  a  theatrical 
license.      The  police  express  the  belief  that  conviction  is 
impossible. 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  the  excise  commissioner 


THE    BREWEES'    INFLUENCE.  331 

might,  if  so  disposed,  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretionary 
power,  refuse  a  license  to  any  keeper  of  a  concert  saloon 
or  dramshop  with  private  wine-rooms,  liable  to  be  used,  if 
not  designed  to  be  used,  as  places  of  immorality. 

INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BREWING    INTERESTS. 

It  remains  to  inquire  into  the  reasons  for  the  non-enforce- 
ment of  the  law.  In  general  the  public  sentiment  of  the 
community  does  not  demand  and  would  not  sustain  its  en- 
forcement. A  glance  at  a  map  showing  the  blocks  upon 
which  there  are  licensed  dramshops  gives  a  clew  to  public 
opinion. 

Large  tracts  of  land  within  the  city  limits  are  in  culti- 
vation as  farms,  and  much  which  has  been  platted  has  not 
yet  been  built  upon.  Besides,  there  are  many  blocks  upon 
which  there  are  public  buildings,  institutions,  manufacto- 
ries, potteries,  brick  and  lumber  yards,  stone  quarries, 
where  there  is  no  place  for  a  saloon.  Of  the  territory  cov- 
ered by  the  corporation  one  half  is  still  in  an  almost  purely 
rural  state.  Of  the  other  half  there  is  very  little  free  from 
the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  saloon,  except  in  the  new 
residence  district  west  of  Grand  Avenue,  where  it  is  kept 
out  by  the  only  effectual  device  yet  invented;  namely,  a 
clause  in  the  conveyance  forbidding  the  use  of  the  property 
for  certain  purposes,  of  which  this  is  one. 

The  multiplication  of  dramshops  is  largely  due  to  the 
business  rivalry  between  breweries,  of  which  St.  Louis 
has  twenty-five  or  thirty,  some  of  them  among  the  largest 
in  the  United  States,  if  not  in  the  world.  Three  fourths 
at  least  of  the  saloons  are  indirectly  owned  and  operated 
by  the  breweries,  which  advance  the  license  tax  and  collect 
it  in  installments,  by  charging  eight  dollars  instead  of  six 
dollars  a  barrel  for  beer.  At  this  rate,  it  is  necessary  to 
sell  300  barrels  a  year  to  make  good  the  advance,  not  count- 
ing interest;  and  the  minimum  consumption  of  beer  in  the 


332  THE   MISSOURI    LOCAL   OPTION   LAW. 

city  would  have  to  be  600,000  barrels,  costing  $3,600,000 
at  wholesale.  But  this  estimate  is  much  too  low.  The 
rate  of  the  ad  valorem  tax  paid  by  dramshop-keepers  as 
merchants  is  25  cents  upon  the  $100.  The  amount,  there- 
fore, which  they  admit  having  expended  for  liquors  of  all 
sorts  is  nearly  $4,000,000.  Doubtless  it  is  greatly  under- 
stated, and  the  greater  part  of  it  is  for  beer,  which  has 
with  the  mass  of  the  people  largely  replaced  the  stronger 
distilled  liquors.  Before  the  Brewers'  Association  was 
organized  the  competition  was  unregulated,  and  non-paying 
saloons  were  maintained  in  many  localities  as  the  result  of 
rivalry  between  manufacturers,  neither  of  whom  would 
abandon  a  disputed  block  or  corner  to  the  other. 

But  the  map  furnishes  an  ocular  demonstration  of  the 
fact  that  public  sentiment  in  St.  Louis  is  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  the  retail  liquor  trade.  On  every  one  of  the 
shaded  blocks  a  vote  has  practically  been  taken  and  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  traffic.  A  vote  by  petition,  confined 
to  tax-payers,  is  theoretically  as  fair  an  expression  of  opin- 
ion as  it  is  possible  to  get.  It  is  the  opinion  represented 
upon  this  map  which  elects  the  municipal  officers,  includ- 
ing the  officers  of  the  courts;  and  from  the  community  so 
imbued  with  liberal  views  upon  the  liquor  question  must 
come  ihe  jurors  who  pass  upon  alleged  violations  of  the 
law.  The  chance  for  the  passage  of  a  prohibitory  law,  or 
for  its  enforcement  if  enacted,  does  not  seem,  under  these 
conditions,  to  be  very  promising.  An  attempt  was  made, 
in  1887,  to  pass  a  joint  resolution  in  the  Missouri  legisla- 
ture requiring  the  submission  to  a  popular  vote  of  a  pro- 
hibitory amendment  to  the  state  Constitution.  The  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of  76  to  53;  but 
it  was  defeated  in  the  Senate,  or  at  least  indefinitely  post- 
poned, by  22  to  11. 

The  magnitude  of  the  financial  interests  involved  in  the 
issue  between  the  advocates  and  ojjponents  of  prohibitory 


334  THE   MISSOURI   LOCAL   OPTION  LAW. 

legislation  is  shown  in  the  statistics  of  the  distilling  and 
brewing  industries.  The  latest  annual  report  of  the  Mer- 
chants' Exchange  contains  the  following  paragraph :  — 

"There  are  now  more  than  twenty-five  breweries  in  the 
city,  which  find  employment  for  upwards  of  3,700  people, 
exclusive  of  travelers,  agents,  and  clerical  help,  which  in 
the  aggregate  is  probably  as  large  as  the  actual  brewing 
force,  whose  yearly  earnings  in  wages  exceed  $2,500,000. 
The  output  exceeds  60,000,000  gallons  per  annum,  just 
twice  as  much  as  the  output  for  1881,  and  more  than  four- 
times  as  large  as  that  for  1877." 

The  annual  product  of  the  breweries  is  about  2,000,000 
barrels,  of  which  approximately  one  half  is  shipped  away 
and  the  rest  consumed  at  home.  There  are  also  two  distil- 
leries in  St.  Louis,  which  in  1893  manufactured  1,763,350 
gallons.  The  trade  statistics  show  receipts  by  river  and 
rail  of  113,116,  and  shipments  of  122,065,  barrels  of  whis- 
key and  high  wines.  These  figures  would  indicate  that 
the  home  consumption,  for  all  purposes,  of  whiskeys  and 
high  wines  approximates  one  and  a  half  million  gallons. 
Tt  is  probably  not  far  from  the  truth  to  say  that  in  St. 
Louis,  for  every  gallon  of  whiskey  drunk,  the  people  drink 
a  barrel  of  beer. 

The  estimate  of  the  excise  commissioner  is  that  the 
fixed  charges  for  taxes,  rent,  wages,  etc.,  are,  on  an  average, 
$200  per  month  for  each  of  2,000  saloons,  making  in  the 
aggregate  $1,800,000  a  year,  to  which  he  adds  $4,200,000 
for  the  cost  of  liquors.  Nine  millions  per  annum  is  in 
his  judgment  the  lowest  estimate  of  the  amount  paid  out 
every  year  in  the  saloons.  Assuming  it  to  be  ten  millions, 
and  that  the  present  population  is  600,000,  this  would  be 
equivalent  to  an  expenditure  per  capita  of  less  than  five 
cents  per  day.  An  estimate  made  in  this  fashion  is  only 
approximate.  There  could  on  this  basis  be  very  little 
actual  drunkenness.      The   police   statistics   of  arrests  for 


THE   brewers'   influence.  335 

public  intoxication  confirm  this  inference.  The  number  of 
arrests  in  the  entire  city  for  the  year  ending  in  April, 
1894,  Avas  3,925,  of  whom  925  were  women.  The  number 
the  same  year,  for  all  offenses,  was  25,030;  so  that  the 
arrests  for  drunkenness  did  not  exceed  one  sixth  of  the 
whole.  Ten  years  ago,  with  less  than  half  the  present 
population,  the  arrests  for  public  intoxication  were  4,914, 
of  whom  963  were  women.  The  total  arrests  were  19,- 
330,  so  that  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  were  one  fourth 
of  the  whole.  There  has  been  an  actual  diminution  in  the 
amount  of  public  intoxication,  and  relatively  to  the  popula- 
tion it  has  diminished  by  one  half.  The  improvement 
among  the  men  is  greater  than  among  the  women.  At  the 
present  time,  with  600,000  inhabitants,  the  number  arrested 
for  drunkenness  daily  averages  about  eight  men  and  three 
women;  and  it  must  be  remembered  that  many  of  these 
are  habitual  drunkards,  who  figure  several  times  in  the 
returns  of  a  single  year.  The  number  of  arrests  annually 
for  public  intoxication  averages  not  more  than  two  to  each 
licensed  saloon.  But  the  value  of  the  statistical  method 
in  an  inquiry  into  the  extent  and  the  results  of  intemper- 
ance is  at  best  slight. 

The  Brewers'  Association  is  a  very  considerable  power 
in  municipal  and  state  politics.  It  declares,  however,  that 
it  has  never  made  a  contribution  to  the  campaign  fund  of 
any  political  party,  and  that  such  measures  as  it  may  have 
adopted,  to  prevent  the  nomination  of  officers  by  either 
party  who  would  make  use  of  their  official  position  to  in- 
jure the  brewing  business,  differ  in  no  respect  from  similar 
measures  employed  by  other  great  corporations  whose  in- 
terests are  threatened  by  attacks  made  upon  them,  whether 
in  good  faith  or  for  purposes  of  blackmail.  In  fairnes^s 
to  this  association  it  should  be  said  that  it  apparently 
believes  itself  to  be  a  public  benefactor  by  fighting  the 
battle  of  fermented  against  distilled  liquors,  which  is  in 


336  THE  MISSOUKI   LOCAL   OPTION  LAW. 

its  judgment  a  great  contribution  to  the  cause  of  temper- 
ance. This  is  no  doubt  an  interested  opinion,  but  it  is 
not  for  that  reason  any  less  sincere.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  but  politicians  dread  the  opposition 
of  the  liquor  interest,  and  are  often  subservient  to  it.  Its 
influence,  upon  the  whole,  is  not  favorable  to  good  govern- 
ment. 

Both  the  chief  of  police  and  the  excise  commissioner, 
when  asked  why  a  more  vigorous  enforcement  of  the  law 
is  not  attempted  by  them,  replied  —  and  without  collusion, 
being  separately  interrogated  —  that  the  chance  of  convic- 
tion in  the  courts  was  too  remote  to  make  it  worth  while. 
The  police  is  legally  the  guardian  of  public  order  rather 
than  of  public  morals.  The  general  good  order  in  St. 
Louis  deserves  special  mention,  even  in  the  worst  locali- 
ties, by  night  as  well  as  by  day,  though  the  force  is  admit- 
tedly too  small,  and  more  than  half  the  territory  is  pa- 
trolled by  mounted  men  only.  Nor  is  there  any  general 
or  apparently  well-founded  suspicion  of  dishonesty  on  the 
part  of  the  police.  But  the  demand  for  the  enforcement 
of  such  statutes  and  ordinances  as  are  directed  against 
immorality  and  vice,  which  one  would  expect  to  hear  from 
the  churches,  or  from  women,  or  from  good  citizens  irre- 
spective of  sex  or  creed  or  party,  is  not  heard. 

Although  the  law  forbids  licensing  the  sale  of  wine  or  beet 
in  houses  of  prostitution,  these  houses  take  out  a  United 
States  liquor  license.  The  police  say  that  they  do  not  keep 
liquors,  but  order  them  from  the  nearest  saloon,  and  divide 
the  exorbitant  profit  made  upon  them  with  the  dramshops. 
It  is  true  that  wires  are  run  from  many  of  these  houses 
into  saloons,  but  they  are  chiefly  used  for  ordering  mixed 
drinks.  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that,  with  few  or 
no  exceptions,  every  house  of  ill-fame  in  St.  Louis  sells 
beer,  and  many  of  them  sell  champagne.  The  number  of 
licenses   issued    by  the    excise    commissioner    annually   is 


GENERAL   SUMMAKY.  337 

about  2,000;  but  the  United  States  commissioner  of  inter- 
nal revenue,  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  addressed  to  him, 
states  that  from  July  1,  1893,  to  June  30,  1894,  there 
were  issued  from  his  oflSce,  for  retail  liquor-dealers,  3,510 
licenses,  and  for  retail  malt  liquor  dealers  103  licenses,  "all 
of  them  within  the  limits  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis."  Here 
is  a  fact  which  ought  to  enlist  public  interest,  and  which 
demands  explanation. 

In  Missouri,  and  especially  in  St.  Louis,  the  expediency 
if  not  the  right  of  prohibition  is  denied  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  voters.  In  St.  Louis  the  right  to 
vote  (by  petition,  though  not  at  the  polls)  is  conceded  to 
all  women  who  are  tax-payers  and  denied  to  all  men  who 
are  not.  The  sexes  are  in  this  regard  upon  an  absolute 
level  before  the  law.  Yet  the  map  shows  that  the  expres- 
sion of  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  community  is  not  ma- 
terially modified  by  this  concession. 

But  the  attempt  to  control  the  drink  habit  by  legislation 
which  falls  short  of  prohibition  has  proved  itself  to  be  but 
a  very  partial  success.  This  is  due  possibly  to  laxity  in 
administration  of  the  law.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to  assert, 
however,  that  the  law  accomplishes  nothing.  It  places 
formidable  barriers  in  the  Avay  of  the  unrestricted  multipli- 
cation of  tippling-houses;  it  insures  a  certain  degree  of 
responsibility  for  their  actions  on  the  part  of  all  engaged 
in  the  liquor  traffic;  it  puts  the  business  under  police  sur- 
veillance and  control;  and  it  has  the  effect  of  preserving 
good  order,  for  the  most  part,  even  in  the  lowest  class  of 
saloons. 


THE  OrEEATION  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  LIQUOR 

TAX   LAW. 

EARLIER    LEGISLATION. 

From  colonial  days  until  1896,  local  self-government 
was  the  basic  principle  in  New  York  liquor  legislation. 
The  State  prescribed  the  general  regulations  to  govern 
the  traffic,  but  the  right  to  grant  licenses,  expend  excise 
moneys,  and  supervise  the  sale  of  intoxicants  belonged  to 
the  locality. 

Of  almost  equal  antiquity  with  the  principle  of  local 
self-government  were  the  other  general  principles  under- 
lying the  liquor  legislation  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years.  The  act  of  1788,  ''  to  lay  a  duty  of  excise  on 
strong  waters  and  for  the  better  regulation  of  inns  and 
taverns,"  is  said  to  have  "laid  the  foundation  of  excise 
legislation  in  the  State  of  New  York,"  yet  it  in  no  wise 
departed  from  the  time-honored  theories  and  methods  ob- 
taining during  the  colonial  period,  albeit  the  prohibitive 
and  restrictive  features  had  become  more  severe. 

Of  the  subsequent  legislation  prior  to  1885,  it  is  equally 
true  that  it  embodied  nothing  essentially  new.  The  many 
different  acts  passed  reveal  only  the  same  regulative  and 
restrictive  devices  in  slightly  altered  forms.  The  abortive 
attempt  made  in  1845  to  introduce  local  option  is  the 
solitary  exception.  Nearly  all  acts  aimed  specifically  to 
suppress  certain  abuses  against  which  reformers  are  still 
contending. 

Once  only,  and  then  for  a  very  brief  period,  the  pre- 
vailing  policy   of    dealing   with    the    liquor   question   was 


EARLIER   LEGISLATION.  339 

completely  discarded.  The  act  providing  for  local  option, 
which  never  became  operative  yet  gave  rise  later  to  the 
pleasant  fiction  that  a  local  option  statute  existed,  was 
but  the  forerunner  of  a  more  drastic  measure,  a  full-fledged 
prohibition  law,  passed  in  1855  and  bearing  the  title,  "  An 
act  for  the  prevention  of  intemperance,  pauperism,  and 
crime."  Being  one  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  original  pro- 
hibition movement,  and  therefore  unsupported  by  a  deep- 
seated  public  sentiment,  the  act  remained  on  the  statute- 
book  for  two  years  only.  The  old  excise  system  replaced 
it,  having  been  recast  and  fortified  by  some  additions  of 
minor  importance. 

From  1857  to  1895,  no  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  acts  dealing  in  some  manner  with  the  excise 
question  were  passed  by  the  legislature.  Seventy  were 
of  a  local  character,  and  of  these  again  about  twenty  re- 
lated exclusively  to  the  city  of  New  York.  The  distri- 
bution of  excise  moneys  and  the  granting  of  licenses  were 
the  two  subjects  given  the  greatest  attention.  A  large 
share  of  the  revenue  from  the  traffic  was  from  time  to 
time  appropriated  for  local  charitable  and  educational  pur- 
poses, a  policy  which,  in  more  than  one  instance,  helped 
to  silence  the  clamor  for  further  restrictive  law. 

When,  finally,  pursuant  to  an  act  of  1892,  the  laws 
regulating  the  liquor  traffic  were  revised  and  consolidated, 
the  resulting  fabric  was  a  patchwork,  not  without  some 
serious  omissions,  of  acts  passed  or  amended  at  intervals 
during  a  long  period  of  years,  and  numerous  enough  to 
confuse  the  ordinary  mind,  the  central  features  of  which, 
nevertheless,  had  on  the  whole  remained  unchanged.  A 
summary  of  the  law  of  1892,  which  was  superseded  by 
the  present  Liquor  Tax  Law,  is  given  below. 


340      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 
THE   LAW  OF   1892. 

EXCISE    COMMISSIONERS. 

In  towns,  the  members  of  boards  of  excise  were  elected 
by  separate  ballot  for  terms  of  one,  two,  and  three  years 
respectively,  no  town  official  or  person  interested  in  the 
sale  of  liquor  being  eligible.  In  cities,  the  excise  com- 
missioners were  appointed  by  the  mayors,  unless  otherwise 
provided  in  the  city  charter.  Full  records  of  the  trans- 
actions of  the  boards  were  to  be  kept  open  to  public  in- 
spection. 

LICENSES. 

A  license  for  the  term  of  one  year  might  be  granted 
only  to  a  person  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  a  resident  of  the  State,  of  good 
moral  character,  who  was  approved  by  the  board  and  bene- 
ficially interested  in  the  business  to  be  licensed.  Six 
classes  of  licenses  were  in  force,  with  fixed  minimum  and 
maximum  fees :  — 

1.  Hotel  license,  granted  to  keepers  of  hotels  or  taverns 
having  at  least  ten  bedrooms  if  in  a  city,  or  three  if  in  a 
town  :  fee  in  cities,  $30  to  $500 ;  in  towns,  $30  to  $150. 

2.  Saloon  liquor  license,  authorizing  the  sale  of  liquors 
of  all  kinds  for  consumption  on  or  oif  the  premises :  fee  in 
cities,  $30  to  $250  ;  in  towns,  $30  to  $150. 

3.  Saloon  ale  or  beer  license  :  fee  in  cities,  $30  to  $75 ; 
in  towns,  $20  to  $60. 

4.  Storekeepers'  license,  to  sell  only  for  consumption  off 
the  premises  :  fee  in  cities,  $30  to  $250  ;  in  towns,  $30  to 
$150. 

5.  Druggists'  license,  for  sale  of  liquors  only  on  a  physi- 
cian's written  prescription  :   fee,  $20. 

6.  An  additional  license,  for  sale  of  liquor  between  the 
hours  of  one  and  five  A.  m.,  might  be  granted  to  any  per- 
son holding  a  license  to  sell  for  consumption  on  the  pre- 


LICENSES.  341 

mises,  if  it  should  "  appear  that  public  necessity  requires 
that  sale  be  permitted  between  these  hours  :  "  fee,  $30  to 
$150. 

Excise  commissioners  were  simply  authorized  to  issue 
licenses  when  satisfied  that  the  applicant  Avas  a  proper 
person  to  engage  in  the  tratfic,  and  not  required  to  do  so. 
When,  however,  a  board  denied  an  application  for  a  hotel 
license,  it  was  obligatory  to  file  a  statement  of  its  reasons 
for  so  doing.  If  a  court  found  that  an  application  had 
been  rejected  arbitrarily,  it  might  command  the  board  to 
issue  the  license.  Transfer  and  sale  of  licenses  were  per- 
mitted. 

The  following  causes  effected  the  immediate  revocation 
of  licenses  :  (1)  A  conviction  of  a  felony  during  the  term 
of  a  license  ;  (2)  a  conviction  for  selling  adulterated  liquors  ; 
(3)  a  conviction  of  a  storekeeper  or  druggist  for  selling  for 
consumption  on  the  premises ;  (4)  a  conviction  of  a  holder 
of  an  ale  and  beer  license  for  having  sold  spirituous  liquors. 
A  board  of  excise  might  revoke  a  license  for  a  number  of 
causes,  but  a  licensee  always  had  the  right  to  a  writ  of  cer- 
tiorari to  review  the  action  of  the  board. 

Sales  were  prohibited  on  Sundays  and  on  week-days  be- 
tween the  hours  of  1  and  5  a.  m.,  on  days  of  elections  or 
town  meetings,  and  within  quarter  of  a  mile  of  a  voting 
place  while  the  polls  were  open.  It  was  further  prohib- 
ited to  sell  to  any  child  under  sixteen,  intoxicated  persons, 
paupers,  habitual  drunkards,  and  to  any  one  to  whom  the 
licensee  had  been  forbidden  to  sell  by  a  written  notice 
from  parent,  guardian,  husband,  wife,  or  child  over  sixteen, 
or  magistrate,  or  overseer  of  the  poor.  Hotel-keepers  were 
permitted  to  sell  liquor  to  guests  Avith  meals,  but  not  in 
the  bar-room.  No  license  was  required  for  sales  in  quan- 
tities of  five  gallons  or  more  for  consumption  off  the  pre- 
mises. 

The  excise  law  of  1892  (known  also  as  the  "  Tammany 


342      OPERATIOX    OF   NEW   YOKK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

law  ")  is  silent  on  the  subject  of  penalties.  Violations 
were  consequently  dealt  with  as  misdemeanors  under  the 
penal  code  and  fines  of  varying  amounts  imposed.  Com- 
plaints by  tlie  residents  of  any  city  or  town  to  the  excise 
board  were  to  be  acted  on  Avithin  thirty  days.  For  willful 
neglect  to  do  so,  a  commissioner  forfeited  his  office,  became 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  liable  to  a  fine  not  exceeding 
$250. 

LOCAL    OPTIOJf. 

Section  forty-one  of  the  law  of  1892  provided  as  follows  : 
"iSTothing  herein  except  section  thirty -one  (relating  to 
illegal  sales)  shall  in  any  manner  apply  to  any  town  where 
the  majority  of  voters  have  voted  for,  or  shall  hereafter  vote 
for,  local  prohibition."  Although  every  general  act  passed 
since  1870  embodied  a  paragraph  couched  in  the  above 
terms,  the  law  prescribed  no  method  of  procedure.  The 
assumption  of  the  existence  of  an  act  explicitly  providing 
for  a  vote  on  local  prohibition  lacked  all  foundation  in  fact. 
The  system  of  local  option  developed  under  the  old  laws 
depended  entirely  on  the  character  and  opinions  of  the 
men  chosen  as  excise  commissioners  in  the  towns.  If  a 
majority  of  a  board  declared  themselves  opposed  to  grant- 
ing licenses,  or  were  elected  because  of  their  opposition,  no 
licenses  were  issued ;  and  it  was  deemed  to  be  the  will  of 
the  people  that  local  prohibition  should  prevail. 

THE    LIQUOR    TRAFFIC    UNDER    THE    LICENSE    LAW. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  legislation  previous  to  1896 
that  many  of  the  acts  prescribed  or  circumscribed  the 
duties  of  excise  boards.  One  may  safely  say  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  measures  intended  to  effect  some  kind  of  re- 
form took  the  excise  boards  as  a  starting-point.  Remedies 
for  their  failings  and  safeguards  against  their  further  short- 
comings were  sought  in  additional  legislation.  The  fact 
that  the  actions  of  a  local  board  of  excise  are  ordinarily 


LIQUOR   TRAFFIC   UNDER   THE   LICENSE   LAW.       343 

determined  by  the  public  sentiment  behind  it,  appears  to 
have  carried  small  weight.  But  the  general  laws  as  well 
as  the  numerous  local  acts  indicate  unmistakably  a  wide- 
spread conviction  that  the  administration  of  the  boards 
and  the  state  of  the  liquor  traffic  under  the  prevailing  ex- 
cise system  left  much  to  be  desired.  There  was  certainly 
no  lack  of  facts  to  justify  such  a  conviction. 

In  1895  the  State  of  New  York  contained  nine  hundred 
and  sixty-four  boards  of  excise,  representing  thirty-seven 
cities,  nine  hundred  and  twenty-five  towns,  and  two  vil- 
lages. To  the  two  thousand  eight  hundred  and  ninety- 
two  officials  constituting  the  boards  must  be  added  nine 
hundred  and  sixty-four  attorneys,  a  still  larger  number  of 
clerks,  and  for  some  cities  a  multitude  of  other  subordi- 
nates. Whether  appointed  or  elected,  the  commissioners 
usually  obtained  office  through  political  preferment,  and 
were,  therefore,  under  obligations  to  serve  party  ends. 
While  the  boards  may,  on  the  whole,  be  said  to  have 
carried  out  the  will,  whether  for  good  or  evil,  of  the 
majority  who  put  them  in  office,  it  is  undeniable  that 
they  often  failed  to  consult  the  temperance  interests  of 
their  respective  communities.  To  charge  such  failure 
solely  to  bad  faith  or  corruption  is  to  forget  the  condi- 
tions under  which  the  excise  boards  worked,  and  the  na- 
ture of  the  law  to  be  administered.  The  law  prescribed 
the  duties  of  the  boards ;  but  men  were  called  upon  to 
perform  them  in  communities  differing  profoundly  in  re- 
spect to  state  of  advancement,  habits,  elements  of  popula- 
tion, and  resulting  views  on  excise  matters.  Furthermore, 
the  law  was  so  elastic  as  to  allow  either  a  lenient  or  a  strict 
policy.  In  cities,  the  excise  boards  could  limit  or  extend 
the  number  of  licenses  at  will  and  classify  them  somewhat 
arbitrarily ;  in  towns,  they  might  lawfully  consider  it  a 
duty  not  to  issue  any ;  the  margin  between  the  minimum 
and  maximum  fees  left  a  liberal  choice ;  and  in  the  general 


344      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW 

supervision  of  the  traffic  they  had  power  to  befriend  or 
oppose  its  interests  in  a  substantial  manner  while  keep- 
ing pretty  well  within  the  letter  of  the  law. 

As  the  natural  outcome  of  these  conditions,  as  well  as 
of  the  infinite  variety  of  opinions  and  prejudices  within 
the  local  boards,  the  laws  were  often  peculiarly  adminis- 
tered, sometimes  not  at  all,  and  never  to  the  satisfaction 
of  both  the  trade  and  the  temperance  advocates.  It  has 
been  officially  stated  that  in  1896  eleven  towns  were  with- 
out excise  boards,  yet  permitted  the  sale  of  intoxicants  to 
go  on.  In  some  towns,  the  board  accepted  much  less  than 
the  statutory  fees ;  in  others,  as  it  appears  from  their 
records,  fees  varying  greatly  in  amount  were  exacted  from 
dealers  situated  precisely  alike  ;  and  in  still  others  it  was 
tacitly  understood  that  no  fees  need  be  paid.  A  frequent 
practice  was  to  charge  a  full  annual  fee  for  a  license  to 
run  less  than  a  year.  With  some  boards,  the  applicant's 
political  creed  and  party  services  would  weigh  more  than 
his  obedience  to  the  law  and  compliance  with  its  require- 
ments. It  is  not  demonstrable  that  the  elected  boards 
were  superior  to  the  appointed.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
most  glaring  irregularities  have  been  officially  charged 
against  elective  boards  in  small  cities  and  towns,  such,  for 
instance,  as  issuing  licenses  on  the  installment  plan,  or 
giving  credit  for  the  whole  amount  due  in  fees.  In  the 
chief  cities  the  boards,  whatever  their  shortcomings,  ob- 
served at  least  the  formalities  of  the  law. 

An  obvious  evil  was  the  mvdtiplication  of  saloons.  In 
many  sections  of  the  State,  their  number  had  for  years  ex- 
ceeded all  "  legitimate  demands  "  in  the  most  liberal  sense 
of  this  term.  And,  contrary  to  popular  notions,  the  in- 
crease of  drinking  places  was  far  from  being  a  feature 
peculiar  to  the  great  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn. 
In  the  month  of  April,  1887,  there  were  more  inhabitants 
to  each  liquor  license  in  these  two  cities  than  in  twenty 


THE   MULTIPLICATION   OF   SALOONS.  345 

other  cities  and  thirteen  towns.  This  excessive  miiltipli- 
cation  of  drink-shops  had  been  going  on  for  years,  and 
was  made  possible  only  by  the  prevailing  custom  of  fixing 
the  license  fee  at  the  lowest  legal  rate.  The  producers 
of  licjuors  had  increased  much  in  the  same  ratio  as  the 
retailers,  and  were  competing  fiercely  for  trade.  A  man 
without  capital,  provided  he  was  of  the  right  sort,  found 
little  difficulty  in  obtaining  aid  to  pay  the  low  fee  and  set 
up  as  a  saloon-keeper. 

The-  increase  of  the  saloons  in  proportion  to  population 
seems  to  have  attained  its  maximum  about  1887.  The 
changes  observable  since  that  date  were  in  a  few  instances 
due  to  the  direct  intervention  of  excise  boards.  In  gen- 
eral, the  traffic  appears  to  have  reached  a  point  beyond 
which  it  could  not  expand ;  and  a  natural  reaction  set  in 
slowly  but  perceptibly.  The  following  table  shows  the  pro- 
portion of  population  to  licenses  for  a  number  of  cities  and 
towns  in  1887,  and  again  in  1895-96.  It  must  be  noted 
that  the  available  statistics  do  not  afford  a  perfectly  accu- 
rate comparison.  For  the  year  1887  it  has  been  necessary 
to  take  the  number  of  licenses  in  force  in  a  given  month, 
but  in  1895-6  the  total  number  of  licenses  issued,  which  is 
always  considerably  in  excess  of  the  number  in  force  at  any 
one  time.  The  increase  of  inhabitants  to  each  license  was, 
therefore,  greater  than  is  indicated  by  the  table. 

Cities. 
Inhabitants  to  each  license. 


1887 

1895-6 

1887 

1895-6 

Buffalo 

72 

115 

Lockport 

110 

153 

Utica 

78 

102 

Rochester 

112 

216 

Long  Island  City 

85 

100 

Rome 

113 

128 

Syracuse 

86 

130 

Kingston 

114 

117 

lludson 

87 

86 

Colioes 

117 

111 

Dunkirk 

94 

137 

Oswego 

124 

144 

Troy 

98 

117 

Biiighamton 

128 

206 

Albany 

100 

130 

Glean 

50 

132 

Newburgh 

101 

146 

Auburn 

137 

161 

Elmira 

104 

109 

New  York 

138 

202 

Yonkers 

105 

151 

Brooklyn 

188 

203 

Schenectady 

106 

142 

346      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 


Towns. 

Inhabitants  to  each  license. 

1887 

1895-6 

1887 

1895-6 

Saratoga  Springs 

56 

50 

Coxsackie 

118 

57 

* Fond a 

67 

Lyons 

119 

93 

Corning 

88 

149 

*janiaica 

122 

Batavia 

95 

93 

Hornellsville 

134 

138 

Geneva 

97 

117 

Saugerties 

135 

58 

CatskiU 

102 

84 

Cazenovia 

137 

137 

*Green  Island 

104 

Ithaca 

137 

249 

*  Number  of  licenses  for  1895-96  not  known. 

The  table  makes  it  plain  that  comparatively  few  excise 
boards  used  their  discretionary  power  in  issuing  licenses  so 
as  to  diminish  the  number  of  saloons.  A  notable  stand  in 
this  respect  was  taken  by  the  New  York  city  board  in 
1887  when  it  adopted  the  locally  famous  "surrender"  rule: 
"The  board  of  excise  will  not  permit  any  increase. in  the 
number  of  saloons  beyond  the  number  now  licensed ;  and  a 
license  will  not  be  issued  for  a  new  place  except  on  the 
closing  of  an  existing  place  and  the  surrender  of  the  license 
thereof."  With  a  reasonable  discrimination  in  favor  of 
hotels  and  restaurants  serving  food  with  drinks,  this  rule 
continued  in  force ;  and  the  last  board  expanded  it  by  de- 
manding the  surrender  of  two  old  licenses  before  issuing 
one  for  a  new  place,  thus  adding  materially  to  the  fee. 
During  the  nine  years  following,  not  a  single  new  saloon 
was  added  to  the  existing  ones,  notwithstanding  the  in- 
crease in  population.  Yet  whatever  good  a  board  achieved 
seems  to  have  been  accomplished  under  a  great  counter- 
pressure  ;  for  when  a  particularly  obnoxious  rascal  had 
been  denied  a  license,  this  performance  of  an  obvious  duty 
was  considered  sufficient  cause  for  public  congratulation. 
But,  besides  being  overdone,  the  liquor  traffic  had  fallen 
into  particularly  evil  ways.  The  blame  has  commonly  been 
laid  at  the  door  of  the  excise  boards,  the  commissioners 
being  convenient  scapegoats.  No  doubt  the  boards  were  in 
some,  perhaps  in  numerous,  instances  much  tainted  by  cor- 


EESPONSIBILITY   OF   THE   EXCISE  BOAKDS.  347 

ruption,  and  given  to  practices  more  or  less  objectionable. 
Their  very  existence  served  to  bring  the  liquor  question  to 
the  fore  in  politics,  and  called  for  united  action  on  the  part 
of  the  trade  in  city  and  town  elections.  But  the  boards 
could  not  rise  above  their  source  of  power.  At  bottom  the 
trouble  lay  with  the  people,  not  with  their  servants,  and 
with  the  social  conditions  that  made  possible  the  prevailing 
sort  of  political  master.  Furthermore,  the  law  was  inade- 
quate in  important  respects.  It  did  not  provide  a  self- 
operative  check  on  the  increase  of  saloons ;  it  conferred 
unusual  discretionary  power  where  such  power  was  most 
likely  to  be  abused  ;  and  it  failed  to  recognize  the  irrepres- 
sible demands  in  the  large  centres.  The  most  unpopular 
feature  in  the  law  was  the  provision  against  Sunday  selling, 
and  it  was  the  one  most  flagrantly  violated,  not  only  in  New 
York  city,  but  more  or  less  in  nearly  all  cities  and  many 
towns.  It  is  a  fair  question  how  far  this  intensely  disliked 
clause  relative  to  Sunday  selling  sufficed  to  bring  the  whole 
law  into  contempt,  and  thus  became  the  innocent  source  of 
much  of  the  corruption  and  other  evils  attendant  upon  its 
non-enforcement.  One  may  well  believe  this  clause  to 
have  been  fateful.  At  any  rate  it  is  significant  that,  when 
through  extraordinary  exertions  Sunday  sales  were  stopped 
in  New  York  city  for  a  time,  the  general  subjection  of  the 
liquor  dealers  to  the  law  was  considered  achieved. 

There  is  no  need  of  enlarging  on  the  familiar  facts  con- 
cerning the  evils  that  had  crept  in  under  the  old  regime,  — 
the  blackmailing  of  the  trade,  the  dives  that  flourished, 
the  prevalence  of  drunkenness,  and  so  forth.  In  varying 
degrees  the  same  evils  had  sprung  up  elsewhere.  The 
points  to  be  emphasized  are,  that  liquor  laws  were  held  in 
contempt  and  not  enforced,  and  that,  when  the  spasmodic 
efforts  at  enforcement  were  attended  by  some  apparent  suc- 
cess, the  punitive  provisions  of  the  law  remained  largely 
inoperative.     Magistrates  were  singularly  kind  to  offenders, 


348      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

excise  cases  were  pigeon-holed  by  the  hundreds  in  the  offices 
of  district  attorneys,  and  juries  refused  to  convict. 

The  operation  of  the  system  of  local  option  which  devel- 
oped under  the  old  excise  laws  deserves  brief  mention. 
The  available  data  are  from  1894,  and  cover  about  90  per 
cent,  of  all  the  towns  in  the  State.  Of  the  847  towns 
accounted  for,  291  elected  excise  boards  with  the  tacit 
understanding  that  they  should  refuse  to  grant  licenses. 
In  addition,  158  towns  granted  licenses  which  Avere  for- 
merly no-license  towns.  It  may  thus  be  inferred  that,  at 
some  period  during  the  preceding  twenty-five  or  thirty 
years,  more  than  one  half  of  the  towns  accounted  for  had 
been,  or  were  in  1894,  no-license  towns.  In  many  towns, 
license  and  no-license  alternated  from  year  to  year ;  in 
many  others,  the  period  of  dryness  lasted  from  one  to  three 
years ;  and  in  not  a  few  the  no-license  policy  had  prevailed 
from  five  to  forty,  and  in  one  instance  for  fifty,  years.  In 
some  counties  no-license  towns  showed  a  remarkable  pre- 
ponderance. In  Allegheny  County,  for  instance,  of  twenty- 
nine  towns  reporting,  twenty-two  were  without  license.  In 
Broome  County  there  were  ten  no-license  to  four  license 
towns,  and  so  on. 

Naturally,  the  no-license  system  obtained  for  the  greater 
part  in  sparsely  settled  rural  communities,  where  the  demand 
for  saloons  was  smallest.  Concerning  the  enforcement  of 
the  no-license  system  and  its  general  results,  the  information 
is  vague.  There  was,  however,  this  notable  diff'erence  be- 
tween New  York  and  other  States  with  local  option  laws  : 
in  the  former  the  agitation  for  and  vote  upon  the  question 
have  rarely  proved  disturbing  elements  in  local  campaigns ; 
annual  political  upheavals  on  account  of  the  liquor  ques- 
tion were  practically  unknown.  But  it  did  unfortunately 
happen  that  excise  commissioners  forgot  their  ante-election 
pledges,  and  licensed  saloons. 


ENACTMENT  OF  THE  LAW.  349 

ENACTMENT  OF  THE  LIQUOR  TAX  LAW. 

The  unsatisfactory  state  of  tlie  liquor  traffic  under  the 
excise  laws  had  long  given  thoughtful  men  concern.  But 
for  various  reasons,  mainly  political,  the  reform  measures 
submitted  to  the  legislature  had  all  been  rejected.  Through 
a  series  of  events,  the  public  mind  was  at  last  fairly  roused 
on  the  excise  question,  and  in  a  manner  which  had  a  direct 
bearing  on  the  subsequent  legislation. 

In  the  early  part  of  1894  the  Lexow  Investigating  Com- 
mittee began  to  throw  its  searchlight  on  the  corruption  in 
New  York  city,  laying  bare,  among  other  things,  the  vio- 
lation of  the  excise  laws,  and  the  collusion  of  the  dealers 
with  the  police  which  made  sucli  abuses  possible.  In- 
spired by  fear,  —  for  no  one  knew  where  the  lightning 
would  strike  next,  —  the  police  began  a  crusade  against  the 
liquor  dealers.  The  excise  arrests  for  the  year  reached  the 
astounding  figure  of  8,422  as  against  3,999  in  1893,  of 
which  5,974  were  for  Sunday  violations ;  and  convictions 
in  magistrates'  courts  became  frequent  beyond  precedent. 
Under  the  "  reform  administration  "  which  sprang  from  the 
political  revolution  of  1894,  the  warfare  against  the  liquor 
dealers  continued  more  rigorously  than  ever ;  and,  so  long 
as  the  offenders  were  dealt  with  in  the  newly  constituted 
Court  of  Special  Sessions,  punishment  was  meted  out  with- 
out fear  or  favor.  So  strenuous  was  the  crusade  of  the 
police,  which  continued  to  be  directed  mainly  against  Sun- 
day selling,  that  men  gravely  questioned  how  long  the  force 
could  endure  the  terrific  strain  under  which  it  was  working. 
Although  this  movement  for  Sunday  closing,  which  was 
followed  by  one  on  a  smaller  scale  in  Brooklyn,  did  not 
extend  to  other  cities,  where,  as  before,  the  "  family  en- 
trance "  remained  open,  it  provoked  an  agitation  and  discus- 
sion that  spread  far  beyond  the  confines  of  the  Greater 
New  York. 


350      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR  TAX  LAW. 

The  question  of  excise  laws  had  come  to  be  more  dis- 
turbing than  all  others.  It  was  agitated  in  the  press  and 
public  meetings,  and  gave  rise  to  unusual  demonstrations. 
The  discussion  did  not  revolve  around  any  specific  panacea 
for  the  existing  ills,  such  as  prohibition,  high  license,  and 
the  like.  The  real  issue  was  whether  the  liquor  traffic 
should  continue  to  be  governed  by  laws  which  local  public 
sentiment  refused  to  support ;  and  the  sum  of  the  conten- 
tion of  the  liquor  dealers  was  that  their  business,  since  it 
supplied  a  public  want  and  necessity,  should  not  be  bur- 
dened by  a  legislation  which  had  proved  itself  obnoxious  to 
most  people  and  had  long  been  a  dead  letter.  They  were 
ably  supported  by  a  part  of  the  press ;  and  a  large  body  of 
citizens,  including  some  of  the  most  prominent  men,  en- 
couraged the  agitation  in  favor  of  changing  the  Sunday 
laws  so  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  large  cities  could  quench 
their  thirst  without  inviting  the  dealers  to  break  the  law. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  the  Kepublican  State  Con- 
vention met  in  1895.  The  excise  question  in  the  form 
described  was  the  ugliest  one  it  had  to  face.  Some  years 
earlier  the  Republican  party  had  pledged  itself  to  excise 
reform,  but  then  it  was  not  in  power,  and  the  Sunday  issue 
was  not  paramount.  For  obvious  reasons  the  leaders  were 
prepared  to  ignore  the  whole  matter.  Since  the  party  mus- 
tered its  majorities  from  communities  strongly  in  favor  of 
retaining  all  Sunday  laws,  it  was  impossible  to  adopt  a 
plank  favorable  to  the  liquor  dealers.  On  the  other  hand, 
to  come  out  squarely  against  any  changes  in  the  excise  law 
might  alienate  the  party  vote  in  the  large  cities.  It  seemed 
most  convenient  to  dodge  the  whole  issue.  And  this 
would  have  been  the  upshot  but  for  the  insistence  of  one 
man,  who  forced  the  convention  to  declare  that  the  main- 
tenance of  the  Sunday  laws  was  necessary  "  in  the  interests 
of  labor  and  morality."  This  not  very  explicit  recognition 
of  the  burning  excise  question  was  all  the  convention  ven- 


ENACTMENT   OF   THE   LAW.  351 

tured  upon.  Yet  it  was  enough  to  frighten  the  Kepubli- 
cans  in  New  York  city,  who  tried  to  undo  the  mischief 
through  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  by  the  county  com- 
mittee which  "  said  nothing,  meant  everything,  and  lost  the 
county."  The  ditierence  of  opinion  on  excise  matters  be- 
tween the  city  and  county  Republicans  had  thus  precluded 
a  harmonious  declaration  by  the  convention.  But,  through 
the  magic  of  a  triumph  at  the  polls  in  the  subsequent  elec- 
tion, the  country  Republicans  found  themselves  masters  of 
the  situation,  and  enabled  to  deal  with  the  vexing  problem 
in  their  own  way.  Accordingly,  the  governor  recommended 
in  his  message  that  the  "  legislature  endeavor  to  formulate 
a  law  which  shall,  as  far  as  practicable,  embody  the  best 
features  of  the  liquor  laws  now  in  successful  operation  in 
various  States,  with  a  consistent  aim  toward  the  reduction 
of  the  number  of  saloons  in  this  State."  Knowing  that 
they  would  be  in  absolute  control  of  the  legislature,  the 
Republicans  had  prepared  for  the  emergency  weeks  in  ad- 
vance, and  at  a  nearly  moment  presented  the  first  crude 
draft  of  what  since  has  become  famous  as  the  Raines  law. 

A  summary  of  this  law  in  its  present  amended  form  is 
given  elsewhere.  Its  essential  features,  as  contained  in 
the  first  draft,  have  been  retained.  They  were,  the  re- 
placement of  all  boards  of  excise  by  a  State  Commissioner 
of  Excise,  appointed  by  the  governor ;  a  tax  on  each  place 
where  liquor  was  to  be  sold,  graded  according  to  popula- 
tion, but  much  higher  in  all  cases  than  the  maximum  of 
the  license  fees ;  and  a  division  of  the  fees  between  the 
State  and  the  localities. 

That  the  bill,  however  much  the  work  of  one  man,  had 
the  cordial  approval  and  consent  of  the  "  boss "  of  the 
Republican  ''  machine "  is  beyond  doubt.  Its  author 
publicly  vouched  for  this  fact. 

The  prominence  given  to  the  tax  provisions  would  mark 
it  as  a  measure  of  the  dominant  Republican  faction,  i|  other 


352      OPEEATION   OF   NEW   YOKK   LIQUOR  TAX   LAW. 

evidence  were  wanting.  There  was  a  deficit  in  the  state 
treasury,  and  the  governor  had  felt  called  upon  to  warn 
the  legislature  in  a  special  message  against  reckless  appro- 
priations. The  party  was  pledged  to  legislation  which 
would  lower  the  taxes.  Furthermore,  the  liquor  tax  bill 
was  in  accordance  with  the  Republican  policy  of  raising 
revenue  by  other  means  than  direct  taxation.  Originally 
the  bill  provided  that  the  liquor  tax  should  be  divided 
equally  between  the  State  and  locality,  whereas  formerly 
the  latter  had  absorbed  all  the  license  fees.  It  was  an 
easy  matter  to  calculate  that,  under  the  tax  rates  established 
by  the  bill,  vast  sums  would  be  turned  into  the  state  trea- 
sury every  year,  and  that  more  than  a  proportionate  share 
would  be  contributed  by  the  cities  where  the  tax  rate 
would  be  highest.  This  was  intended  to  please  the  rural 
members,  whose  not  over-friendly  attitude  toward  the  cities 
is  almost  proverbial,  and  make  them  forget  that  the  bill 
in  its  first  form  omitted  all  reference  to  Sunday  selling. 

Nearly  all  the  members  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Taxation  and  Retrenchment,  to  which  the  bill  was  referred, 
came  from  the  smaller  towns.  A  number  of  other  bills 
relating  to  excise  had  been  referred  to  the  same  committee, 
notably  one  providing  for  local  option  on  the  question  of 
Sunday  selling  in  the  cities  of  New  York,  Brooklyn,  and 
Buffalo,  accompanied  by  a  petition  signed  by  150,000  in- 
habitants of  New  York.  Although  this  measure  had  a 
strong  backing,  and  much  pressure  was  brought  to  bear 
in  its  favor,  it  was  intolerable  from  a  party  point  of  view. 

Soon  it  became  evident  that  the  machine  programme 
was  to  pass  the  Raines  bill  with  all  possible  speed.  But 
this  appears  to  have  been  a  more  formidable  task  than 
was  anticipated.  Republicans  from  the  cities  felt  that 
to  vote  for  a  bill  so  sweeping  in  its  changes,  which 
abolished  the  cherished  home-rule  privileges,  and  aimed 
to  lighten  the  rural  burden  of  taxation  at  the  expense  of 


ENACTMENT   OF   THE   LAW.  353 

the  cities,  was  for  them  to  invite  political  suicide.  They 
had  to  be  appeased  in  a  measure  by  amendments,  such  as 
the  one  changing  the  State's  share  of  the  liquor  money 
from  one  half  to  one  third.  There  was  a  storm  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  whole  scheme,  threatening  enough  all  over  the 
State  to  make  even  some  rural  legislators  faint-hearted. 
The  keynote  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill  outside  the 
legislature  was,  What  is  the  real  purpose  of  the  measure  ? 
It  was  observed  that,  when  a  considerable  opposition  de- 
veloped among  the  senators,  the  feature  of  the  bill  particu- 
larly urged  by  its  author  as  a  reason  for  passage  was  its 
revenue-producing  qualities.  No  plea  was  made  on  the 
ground  of  its  supposed  moral  effects.  In  fact,  temperance 
talk  was  conspicuously  absent  from  the  debate.  Perhaps 
for  this  reason  some  religious  bodies  were  led  to  condemn 
the  whole  bill  in  advance,  and  to  express  emphatic  distrust 
of  its  honesty  of  purpose. 

When  first  introduced,  it  was  loudly  proclaimed  as  one 
of  the  primary  objects  of  the  bill  to  take  the  liquor  ques- 
tion out  of  politics,  the  leaders  of  both  houses  repeatedly 
avowing  their  intention  to  pass  a  measure  which  would 
accomplish  this  great  end.  But  the  amendments  adopted 
seemed  to  the  objectors  to  belie  this  intention.  More 
elaborate  state  machinery  for  executing  the  law  had  been 
devised.  There  was,  for  instance,  a  provision  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  sixty  confidential  agents,  hence  not,  it  was 
conjectured,  to  be  subject  to  a  competitive  civil  service 
examination.  Plainly,  the  bill  afforded  a  large  patronage 
to  the  ruling  party,  the  annual  outlay  for  salaries-  alone 
being  estimated  at  $250,000.  These  and  other  facts  were 
urged  to  show  that  the  bill  would  have  the  effect  of  mak- 
ing the  liquor  question  the  most  important  if  not  the 
dominant  element  in  state  politics.  Tlie  powers  conferred 
upon  officers  were  held  to  be  excessive  and  arbitrary,  and 
to  afford  unlimited  possibilities  for  blackmail  and  corrup- 


354      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YOKK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

tion,  and  therefore  more  dangerous  than  the  discretionary 
powers  held  by  excise  boards.  At  the  outset  some  of  the 
most  enlightened  men  in  the  community  expressed  views 
like  the  above,  but  later  found  occasion  to  modify  them. 
And  subsequent  events  have  shown  that  some  of  the  ad- 
vance alarm  was  needless,  not  because  the  intentions  of  the 
bill  were  wholly  misjudged,  but  because,  through  accidents, 
some  of  them  could  not  be  carried  out. 

It  seems  beyond  doubt  that  the  bill,  not  incidentally 
but  avowedly  and  of  set  purpose,  created  a  political  en- 
gine, while  at  the  same  time  mildly  endeavoring  to  con- 
ciliate the  moral  sentiment  of  the  State.  By  substituting 
state  for  local  control,  the  Kepublican  machine  had  no- 
thing to  lose  but  everything  to  gain  ;  for  there  was  no  inten- 
tion of  effecting  any  real  change  in  the  rural  districts, 
except  that  they  would  now  be  taxed  from  Albany.  The 
excise  boards  had  proved  strong  and  awkward  factors  in 
politics.  As  a  rule  the  Democrats  controlled  them  in  the 
large  cities.  But,  even  if  in  Republican  hands,  their  sub- 
serviency to  the  machine  could  not  be  taken  for  granted. 
Here  w^as  an  opportunity  to  abolish  them  all,  and  substi- 
tute a  political  adjunct  which  could  be  absolutely  con- 
trolled, and  which  through  patronage,  if  not  in  a  more 
direct  manner,  would  add  to  the  party  strength  at  weak 
points.  Above  all,  a  telling  blow  would  be  dealt  the 
Democratic  party,  which  was  supposed  to  get  much  of  its 
support  through  the  local  excise  boards.  The  latter  had 
not  so  commended  themselves  to  public  favor  that  a  dan- 
gerous agitation  for  their  retention  was  anticipated.  Nor 
was  the  cry  for  home  rule  likely  to  be  stronger  than  the 
desire  to  replenish  an  empty  treasury  without  imposing  a 
perceptible  burden.  And,  in  the  future,  a  long  purse  for 
appropriations  would  help  to  justify  the  machine  rule. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  bill  involved  antagonism  to  the 
organized   trade.      But   its   advocates  said,   with  true   pro- 


ENACTMENT   OF   THE    LAW.  355 

phetic  instinct,  that  this  would  disappear  when  the  new 
provisions  came  to  be  better  understood.  To  be  sure, 
those  interested  in  the  liquor  traffic  were  generally  of 
another  political  creed ;  and  perhaps  few  were  sanguine 
enough  to  believe  that  they  could  be  driven  to  forsake 
their  faith  en  masse.  But  might  it  not  work  a  political 
disintegration  in  their  ranks  to  discover  that  their  own 
party  could  no  longer  extend  local  favors  through  excise 
boards  ?  Besides,  those  of  the  trade  who  adhered  to  the 
Republican  machine  could  now  be  brought  to  the  fore  to 
great  advantage,  and  a  whip  might  be  cracked  over  the 
heads  of  the  others  as  occasion  required. 

It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that,  while  the  Raines 
bill  was  pending,  the  "  machine  "  made  strenuous  efforts 
to  "jam  through"  the  Greater  New  York  bill.  That  a 
piece  of  legislation  fraught  with  such  stupendous  changes, 
and  involving  such  political  possibilities,  should  have  been 
advocated  by  the  same  men  who  favored  the  liquor  tax 
law  seems  explicable  only  on  the  ground  that  they  hoped 
to  weaken  their  foes,  and  add  elements  of  strength  to  their 
own  party,  through  this  new  machine  of  their  creation. 

The  fury  of  opposition  to  the  bill  was  successfully  with- 
stood. Nevertheless,  on  the  night  of  March  21,  1896, 
when  the  bill  came  up  for  the  last  time,  something  like 
a  stampede  threatened.  It  was  only  by  locking  the  doors, 
to  prevent  any  Assemblyman  from  escaping,  that  the  attend- 
ance of  the  necessary  number  was  secured,  and  the  bill 
was  finally  passed  by  a  vote  of  eighty-four  to  fifty-nine. 
The  governor  signed  it  a  few  weeks  later,  after  having 
given  several  hearings  to  protesting  delegations,  prominent 
among  which  were  sixteen  mayors  of  cities. 


356      OPEEATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  LIQUOR  TAX  LAW 
OF  1896  AS  AMENDED  IN  1897. 

T7ie  princijjal  amendments  are  designated  hy  italics. 

EXCISE    OFFICIALS. 

The  old  boards  of  excise  are  superseded  by  a  state  com- 
missioner of  excise,  appointed  by  the  governor,  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  hold  office  for  five 
years  at  a  salary  of  $5,000  a  year,  to  which  is  added  the 
sum  of  $1,800  for  expenses.  He  is  under  a  bond  of  $20,000 
for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duties.  The  state 
conimissioner  is  required  to  make  an  annual  report  to 
the  legislature  on  the  transactions  of  his  office,  "  tvhich 
shall  contain  such  statements,  facts,  and  explanations  as 
ivill  disclose  the  actual  ivorkings  of  the  liquor  tax  law 
in  its  bear'ings  upon  the  welfare  of  the  State,  .  .  .  and 
such  amendments  of  this  law  as  the  commissioner  shall 
deem  appropriated  It  is  the  duty  of  the  state  commis- 
sioner to  appoint,  — 

1.  A  deputy  commissioner,  at  a  salary  of  $4,000  a  year, 
who  must  give  bond  in  the  sum  of  $20,000 ;  a  secretary, 
a  financial  clerk,  and  the  other  clerical  force  needed  in  his 
office.  2.  A  special  deputy  commissioner  in  each  county  hav- 
ing a  city  of  the  first  class,  to  hold  office  during  his  pleasure. 
Such  counties  are  at  present  New  York,  Kings,  and  Erie. 
The  amount  of  the  bonds  to  be  furnished  by  the  special 
deputies  is  fixed  by  the  state  commissioner.  He  has  also 
the  appointment  of  the  clerical  force  needed  by  the  sub- 
officers  and  prescribes  their  duties.  3.  Special  agents  to 
the  number  of  sixty,  at  a  salary  of  $1,200  each  per  annum. 
The  special  agents  are  deemed  the  confidential  agents  of 
the  state  commissioner,  and  shall,  under  his  direction  and 
as  required  by  him,  investigate  all  matters  relating  to  liquor 
taxes  and  the  enforcement  of  the  various  provisions  of  the 


CLASSIFICATION  —  TAX   CERTIFICATES.  357 

law.  The  agent  may  enter  any  place  where  liquor  is  sold, 
for  the  purpose  of  investigation,  and  must  make  complaints 
of  violations  of  the  law  under  the  penalty  provided  for 
neglect  by  public  officers  in  this  respect  (a  fine  of  $500). 
4.  Attorneys  to  represent  him  or  act  with  him  or  his  sub- 
ordinates in  legal  matters  arising  in  connection  with  the 
liquor  tax  law.  All  officers  ajjpointed  by  the  state  com- 
inissioner  may  he  removed  by  him. 

CLASSIFICATION    OF    CITIES    AND    TOWNS. 

For  the  purpose  of  grading  the  taxes  on  liquor  selling 
according  to  the  population  of  the  place  in  which  the  busi- 
ness is  to  be  carried  on,  the  following  classification  has 
been  adopted :  First  class,  a  city  of  1,500,000 ;  second 
class,  a  city  having  less  than  1,500,000  but  more  than 
500,000 ;  third  class,  a  city  having  less  than  500,000  but 
more  than  50,000 ;  fourth  class,  a  city  or  village  having 
less  than  50,000  but  more  than  10,000 ;  fifth  class,  a  city 
or  village  having  less  than  10,000  but  more  than  5,000  ; 
sixth  class,  a  village  having  less  than  5,000  but  more  than 
1,200 ;  seventh  class,  all  other  places. 

GRADES    OF    LIQUOR    TAX    CERTIFICATES. 

1.  For  the  retail  traffic  in  liquor  to  be  drunk  on  the 
premises,  whether  in  a  hotel,  restaurant,  saloon,  store,  etc., 
tax  rate  :  First  class,  $800  ;  second,  $650  ;  third,  $500  ; 
fourth,  $350;  fifth,  $300;  sixth,  $200;  seventh,  $100. 

2.  For  the  sale  of  liquor  in  quantities  of  not  less  than 
five  gallons,  not  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises,  tax  rate: 
First  class,  $500  ;  second,  $400 ;  .third,  $300 ;  fourth, 
$200 ;  fifth,  $100  ;  sixth,  $75 ;  seventh,  $50. 

3.  For  the  sale  of  liquors  by  a  duly  licensed  pharmacist, 
not  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises,  tax  rate,  $5.00. 

4.  For  the  sale  of  liquors  on  steamboats,  vessels,  and 
cars,  at  retail,  tax  rate,  $200  for  each  car,  steamboat, 
vessel,  etc.,  on  which  the  traffic  is  carried  on. 


358      OPEKATION   OF   NEW   YOEK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

5.  For  the  delivery  of  malt  liquors  from  vehicles. 
The  holder  of  a  tax  certificate  for  the  sale  of  liquors  i?i 
quantities  of  less  than  five  gallons,  toho  is  engaged  in 
the  business  of  bottling  malt  liquors,  and  wishes  to  sell 
them,  at  any  other  place  than  the  one  mentioned  in  the 
tax  certificate,  may  sell  or  deliver  malt  liquors  from  a 
vehicle  in  quantities  of  less  than  five  gallons,  but  not  less 
than  three  at  a  time,  on  paying  a  tax  of  $100  for  each 
vehicle  so  emjiloyed.  The  tax  certificate  must  at  all 
times  be  carried  with  such  vehicle  or  be  posted  on  it. 

6.  For  the  sale  of  alcohol  in  quantities  of  less  than 
five  gallons  only,  betiveen  the  hours  of  seven  A.  m.  and 
seven  p.  m.,  on  any  day  except  Sunday,  for  mechanical, 
medicinal,  or  scientific  j^^t^poses,  by  dealers  who  are  not 
engaged  in  the  sale  of  liquor  of  any  other  kind,  tax  rate : 
First  class,  $25  ;  second,  $20  ;  third,  $15  ;  fourth,  $10  ; 
all  others,  $5. 

RESTRICTIONS    AND    REGULATIONS    GOVERNING    THE 
GRANTING    OF    LIQUOR    TAX    CERTIFICATES. 

Debarred  from  receiving  such  certificates  are  persons 
who  have  been  convicted  of  a  felony,  or  who  knoivingly 
have  a  persoti  so  convicted  in  their  employ ;  minors, 
aliens,  and  non-residents  of  the  State ;  corporations  or  asso- 
ciations incorporated  or  organized  under  the  laws  of  an- 
other State,  except  when  acting  as  common  carriers ;  a 
copartnership,  when  not  at  least  one  half  of  the  interest 
in  it  is  owned  by  a  resident  citizen ;  a  corporation,  associa- 
tion, copartnership,  or  person  or  agent  who  has  been  con- 
victed for  a  violation  of  this  act,  until  five  years  from  the 
date  of  such  conviction ;  a  corporation  (club)  trafficking 
in  liquors  with  any  person  other  than  the  m^embers 
thereof ;  persons  engaged  in  any  business  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  the  State. 

A  liquor  tax  certificate  of  the  first  grade  may  not  be 
granted,  — 


EESTRICTIONS   AND   KEGULATIONS.  359 

1.  To  a  person  engaged  in  the  business  of  selling  grocer- 
ies, or  dry  goods  or  provisions,  or  drugs  as  a  pharmacist, 
unless  it  be  to  carry  on  the  traffic  in  liquors  at  some  other 
building,  or,  if  in  the  same  building,  then  only  in  a  room 
which  is  separated  by  liartitions  at  least  three  inches 
thick,  with  no  means  of  covimunication  between  it  and 
the  rooms  where  the  other  business  is  carried  on,  so  that 
it  is  necessary  to  go  into  a  irnblic  street  before  the  place 
can  be  entered  upon  leaving  the  other. 

2.  For  any  building  or  place  which  is  on  the  same  high- 
way and  within  two  hundred  feet  of  a  building  occupied 
exclusively  as  a  church  or  schoolhouse,  except  for  pre- 
mises occupied  as  hotels  or  saloons  under  the  law  of  March 
23,  1896,  and  to  bona  fide  clubs,  or  a  place  within  such 
limit  to  ivhich  a  club  may  remove. 

Trafficking  in  liquors  is  further  prohibited  in  any 
form,  upon  or  from  any  vehicle  ivhich  does  not  have  a 
special  liquor  tax  certificate ;  and  in  any  penal  or  other 
institution  of  a  public  character,  or  within  half  a  mile  of 
such  institution,  except  a  county  or  state  prison. 

All  persons  liable  for  a  tax  under  the  law,  except  com- 
mon carriers  and  applicants  for  a  bottler's  certificate,  must 
submit  a  signed  and  sworn  statement  to  the  county  trea- 
surer or  special  deputy  commissioner,  in  which  shall  be 
stated  :  — 

The  name  and  residence  of  the  applicant,  and  the  facts 
as  to  his  citizensliip  ;  the  premises  where  the  business  is 
to  be  carried  on,  and  the  specific  location  of  the  bar  at 
which  liquor  is  to  be  sold  ;  the  kind  of  traffic  to  be  en- 
gaged in,  and  what  other  business,  if  any,  in  connection 
therewith,  or  in  the  room  adjoining,  is  carried  on  by  the 
applicant  or  any  other  person ;  that  the  applicant  has  not 
been  convicted  of  a  felony,  has  not  had  a  license  revoked 
under  former  laws,  nor  been  convicted  of  a  violation  of 
the  present   act  within  five  years  prior  to  the  date  of 


360      OPERATION   OF  NEW  YORK  LIQUOR  TAX  LAW. 

ajjjdication  ;  and  that  he  is  not  interested  in  any  unlaw- 
ful traffic  or  occupation. 

If  the  applicant  intends  to  sell  liquor  in  a  hotel,  he 
must  show  that  all  the  requirements  of  the  law  relating 
to  hotel-keejjing  have  been  complied  with.  Unless  liquors 
were  lawfully  sold  on  the  premises  described  in  the  state- 
ment when  the  present  law  went  into  effect,  a  consent  in 
writing  executed  by  the  owner  of  the  premises  or  his  agent 
must  be  filed  with  the  application.  A  similar  rule  applies 
to  buildings  which  are  public  property. 

When  the  nearest  entrance  to  the  place  where  liquors 
are  to  be  sold  is  within  two  hundred  feet  of  the  nearest 
building  or  buildings  occupied  exclusively  as  dwellings,  the 
consent  in  writing  of  the  owners  of  at  least  two  thirds  of 
such  buildings  must  be  obtained.  If  the  premises  were 
used  for  saloon  jjurjjoses,  or  occupied  as  a  hotel,  with  or 
without  a  bar,  at  the  time  this  law  went  into  effect,  no 
such  consent  is  required. 

BONDS. 

Each  corporation,  association,  copartnership,  or  person 
taxed  must  furnish  bonds  in  the  penal  sum  of  twice  the 
amount  of  tax  for  one  year  upon  the  kind  of  liquor  traffic 
carried  on,  but  in  no  case  for  less  than  $500,  conditioned 
that  the  applicant  will  not  permit  any  gambling  or  dis- 
order, nor  violate  the  law  in  any  Avay,  and  that  all  fines, 
penalties,  and  judgments  will  be  paid.  Two  sureties  are 
required,  or  the  bond  may  be  issued  by  a  corporation  duly 
authorized  to  do  so  under  the  laws  of  the  State. 

ISSUING    TAX    CERTIFICATES. 

When  the  application  is  found  to  be  correct  in  form, 
and  "  does  not  show  on  the  face  thereof  that  the  appli- 
cant is  prohibited  from  trafficking  in  liquors  "  under  the 
section  of  the  law  under  which  he  applies,  "  nor  at  the 


TRANSFER   OF   TAX    CERTIFICATES.  361 

place  where  the  traffic  is  to  be  carried  on,"  and  when  the 
bond  is  found  to  be  in  order,  then,  upon  the  payment  of 
the  taxes,  the  proper  authorities  "  shall  at  once  prepare 
and  issue  a  liquor  tax  certificate."  The  certificates  must 
be  so  displayed  as  to  be  visible  from  the  street. 

SUEREXDEB,    TRANSFER,    AND    SALE    OF    TAX    CERTIFI- 
CATES. 

Elaborate  provisions  are  made  for  the  payment  of  re- 
bates in  case  a  liquor  tax  certificate,  which  has  at  least 
another  month  to  run,  be  voluntarily  surrendered  by  a 
"person  a r/aifist  whoni  there  is  no  complaint  or  action  for 
violation  of  the  law,  except  holders  of  certificates  of  grades 
three,  five,  and  six.  On  the  death  of  the  original  holder, 
a  liquor  tax  certificate  may  be  surrendered  in  the  same 
manner,  or  the  business  be  continued  by  the  estate. 

Holders  of  liquor  tax  certificates  may  transfer  their  busi- 
ness to  another  locality  in  the  same  city  or  town  upon 
filing  a  new  application  and  bond.  The  sale  of  liquor  tax 
certificates  for  the  unexpired  terms  thereof  is  restricted  to 
grades  one,  two,  and  four,  but  requires  in  all  cases  the  con- 
sent of  the  official  who  issued  it,  or  of  his  successors.  Such 
sale,  however,  is  7iot  permitted  if  the  holder  is  under 
indictment  for  violation  of  the  laiv,  or  if  a  complaint 
under  oath  is  pending  against  him.  The  fee  for  legaliz- 
ing such  sales  is  $10,  to  be  apportioned  and  accounted  for 
as  taxes.  If  an  official  refuse  to  issue  or  transfer  a  liquor 
certificate,  the  applicant  has  the  right  to  a  writ  of  certio- 
rari to  review  the  action  of  such  officer. 

REVOKING    TAX    CERTIFICATES. 

At  any  time  after  a  liquor  tax  certificate  has  been 
granted,  any  citizen  of  the  State  may  present  a  verified 
petition  to  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  an  order 
revoking  and    canceling   such  certificate  upon  the  ground 


362      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

that  material  statements  in  the  application  of  the  holder  of 
the  certificate  were  false,  or  that  for  any  reason  he  is  not 
entitled  to  hold  it.  The  order  grantmff  the  hearing  of 
the  petition  must  contain  an  injunction  restraining  the 
holder  from  transferring  or  surrendering  his  certificate 
until  the  case  is  disposed  of 

RESTRICTIONS    GOVERNING    THE    SALE    OF    LIQUOR. 

It  is  prohibited  to  sell,  deliver,  or  give  away  liquors  to 
any  minor  under  the  age  of  eighteen,  and  to  such  minor  for 
any  other  person  ;  to  habitual  drunkards ;  to  an  Indian ; 
to  a  person  to  whom  a  dealer  may  be  forbidden  to  sell  by 
notice  in  writing  from  the  parent,  guardian,  husband,  wife, 
or  child  of  such  person  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  or  by  a 
magistrate  or  overseer  of  the  poor  of  the  town,  but  the  lat- 
ter only  in  case  the  person  in  question  is  wholly  or  partly  a 
charge  upon  the  town  ;  to  any  person  committed  to  a  pub- 
lic institution,  except  on  the  prescription  of  a  physician  to 
such  an  institution.  It  is  further  unlawful  for  one  who 
has  not  paid  the  tax  to  sell  or  give  away  any  liquors  in  any 
quantity  less  than  five  gallons,  or,  without  having  paid 
such  tax,  to  sell  or  give  away  liquors  in  any  quantity  any 
part  of  which  is  to  be  drunk  on  the  premises. 

It  is  prohibited  to  sell  liquor  on  Sunday,  or  before  five 
o'clock  A.  M.  Monday  ;  on  any  other  day  between  one  and 
five  A.  M.  ;  on  election  days,  within  quarter  of  a  mile  of 
any  voting  place  while  the  polls  are  open  ;  to  sell  adulter- 
ated liquors ;  to  permit  any  girl  or  woman,  not  a  member 
of  the  dealer's  family,  or  any  person  who  has  been  con- 
victed of  a  felony,  to  sell  or  serve  any  liquor  on  the  pre- 
mises. During  the  hours  when  sale  is  prohibited,  the  doors 
must  be  kept  locked,  and  no  person,  who  is  not  a  member 
of  the  dealer's  family  or  in  his  employ,  may  be  admitted. 
During  the  hours  when  tlie  sale  of  liquors  is  forbidden,  any 
obstruction  to  a  full  view  of  the  bar  from  the  sidewalk  is 


RESTRICTIONS   GOVERNING   SALE.  363 

prohibited,  and  it  is  unlmvful  at  any  time  to  have  an 
inclosed  box  or  stall  which  ijrevents  a  full  view  of  the 
room  by  every  jyerson  present. 

A  person  residing  in  a  town  where  local  prohibition 
obtains  is  not  permitted  to  take  orders  for  the  delivery  of 
liquor  to  any  person  residing  in  the  same  town.  Local 
prohibition  does  not,  however,  prevent  manufacturers  of 
liquor  from,  legally  selling  in  quantities  of  five  gallons  or 
Tnore  for  delivery  outside  the  town. 

The  necessary  exceptions  are  made  to  allow  a  holder  of  a 
pharmacist's  liquor  tax  certificate  to  sell  on  prescription 
during  the  prohibited  hours. 

The  holder  of  a  liquor  tax  certificate  of  the  first  grade, 
who  keeps  a  hotel,  may  sell  liquor  to  his  guests  with  their 
meals,  or  in  their  rooms,  on  Sundays  as  well  as  week-days, 
except  between  the  hours  of  1  and  5  A.  m.,  but  not  in  the 
bar-room.  The  term  "  hotel "  is  defined  as  a  building  reg- 
ularly used  and  kept  open  for  the  feeding  and  lodging  of. 
guests,  where  all  who  conduct  themselves  properly  and  are 
able  to  pay,  for  their  entertainment  are  received  if  there 
he  accommodations  for  them,  and  who,  without  any  stip- 
ulated engagement  as  to  the  duration  of  their  stay  or  rate 
of  compensation,  are  supplied  xvith  their  meals,  lodging, 
refreshment,  etc.,  and  in  which  the  only  other  dwellers 
shall  be  the  family  and  servants  of  the  hotel-keeper. 

A  hotel,  if  located  in  a  city,  incorporated  village  of  1,200 
or  more  inhabitants,  or  within  two  miles  of  the  corporate 
limits  of  either,  must  conform  to  all  laws  and  ordinances 
relating  to  hotels  and  hotel-keepers.  The  building  must 
contain  at  least  ten  bedrooms  above  the  basement,  exclusive 
of  those  occupied  by  the  family  and  servants,  all  rooms 
being  separated  by  a  partition  at  least  three  inches  thick, 
with  independent  access  to  a  hallway.  Each  room  must 
have  at  least  80  square  feet  of  floor  area,  and  at  least 
600  cubic  feet  of  space.     The  dining-room  must  have  at 


364      OPERATION    OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

least  300  square  feet  of  floor  area,  with  accommodations 
for  at  least  twenty  guests  at  one  time,  and  must  not  be  a 
part  of  the  har-room.  The  kitchen  and  conveniences  for 
cooking  must  he  sufficient  to  provide  meals  for  twenty 
guests  at  one  time. 

A  guest  of  a  hotel  is  defined  as  a  j^erson  who  in  good 
faith  occupies  a  room  in  a  hotel  as  a  temporary  home,  but 
does  not  occupy  it  for  the  purpose  of  having  liquor  served 
therein;  or  as  a  person  who,  during  the  hours  when 
'meals  are  regularly  served  therein,  7'esorts  to  the  hotel  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  meal. 

Clubs  incorporated  prior  to  the  enactment  of  this  law 
are  exempt  from  the  provisions  regarding  the  sale  of 
liquor  to  members  during  the  prohibited  hours. 

In  cities,  the  holders  of  liquor  tax  certificates  of  the 
first  grade  may,  on  the  presentation  of  a  permit  signed 
by  the  mayor  and  chief  of  police  and  a  piayment  of  a  tax 
of  %10  for  each  day,  obtain  a  spiecial  liquor  tax  certificate 
for  sale  of  liquor  during  prohibited  hoiirs,  1  to  5  A.  M., 
of  one  or  more  specified  days,  not  including  Sundays,  at 
the  place  sjjecified  in  the  permit.  No  recovery  can  he 
had  for  liquor  to  he  drunk  on  the  premises  when  sold  on 
credit. 

Any  tax-payer  residing  in  a  county,  in  which  a  violation 
of  the  law  occurs,  may  present  a  verified  petition  to  a  jus- 
tice of  the  Supreme  Court  for  an  order  enjoining  the  per- 
son from  selling  liquor, 

LOCAL    OPTION    IN    TOWNS. 

The  law  prescribes  the  submission  of  four  distinct  ques- 
tions to  the  qualified  electors  of  towns :  Whether  liquor- 
selling  shall  be  permitted,  (1)  for  consumption  on  the  pre- 
mises where  sold ;  (2)  not  for  consumption  on  the  premises 
where  sold;  (3)  by  pharmacists  on  a  physician's  prescrip- 
tion ;    (4)    by   hotel-keepers    only.       The    fourth   question 


PENALTIES   FOR   VIOLATION    OF   LAW.  3G5 

reads  as  follows  :  "  Shall  any  corporation,  association,  co- 
partnership, or  person  be  authorized  to  traffic  in  liquors 
under  subdivision  1  of  section  11  of  the  liquor  tax  law,  but 

only   in   connection   with  keeping  a  hotel,  in ,  if  the 

majority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  first  questUm  stcbmitted 
are  in  the  negative?  '^  If  the  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
on  the  fourth  question  submitted  are  in  the  affirmative, 
and  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  first  question  are 
in  the  negative,  a  liquor  tax  certificate  of  the  first  grade 
may  be  granted  to  keepers  of  hotels  who  may  sell  liquor 
to  be  drunk  on  or  off  the  premises,  though  the  m,ajority 
of  the  votes  cast  on  the  second  question  be  in  the  negative. 
If  the  majority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  second  question 
he  in  the  affirmative,  the  holder  of  a  liquor  tax  certificate 
of  the  second  grade  ivho  is  a  pharmacist  shall  not  sell  as 
a  jiharmacist  if  a  viajority  of  the  votes  cast  on  the  third 
question  are  in  the  negative.  The  questions  were  to  be 
voted  on  at  the  first  annual  town  meetings  after  the  passage 
of  the  act,  and  are  to  be  again  submitted  at  the  annual 
town  meetings  held  in  every  second  year  thereafter,  pro- 
vided at  least  ten  per  cent,  of  the  electors  request  a  re- 
submission of  the  question  by  a  written  petition  signed  by 
them  before  a  notary  public. 

LIABILITIES    AND     PENALTIES     FOR    VIOLATION     OF     THE 

LAW. 

Clerks,  agents,  employees,  or  servants  are  held  equally 
liable  as  principals.  Each  violation  of  any  of  the  provi- 
sions of  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  constitute  a  separate 
offense.  In  the  case  of  corporations  or  associations,  their 
officers  are  held  liable. 

The  penalty  for  selling  liquor  without  having  lawfully 
obtained  a  liquor  tax  certificate,  or  for  refusing  to  make 
application  for  one,  or  to  give  bond,  is  a  fine  not  less  than 
$200,  or  more  than  $1,000,  provided  the  fine  equals  the 


366      OPERATION  OF   NEW  YORK   LIQUOR  TAX   LAW. 

amount  of  the  tax  for  one  year  imposed  upon  the  kind  of 
traffic  in  liquor  carried  on.  Imprisonment  for  a  term  of 
not  more  than  one  year  may  be  added  to  the  fine. 

For  making  a  false  statement  in  the  application  for  a  tax 
certificate,  and  selling  liquor  contrary  to  the  several  restric- 
tions imposed,  or  in  violation  of  the  grade  of  certificate 
obtained,  there  is  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $500,  or  impris- 
onment for  not  more  than  one  year,  or  both.  In  addition, 
the  liquor  tax  certificate  and  all  rights  under  it  are  for- 
feited. 

If  any  person,  acting  for  the  holder  of  a  liquor  tax  cer- 
tificate, be  twice  convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  law,  the 
certificate  of  the  principal  is  forfeited,  together  with  all 
rights  and  privileges  thereunder. 

Any  person  convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  law  may  not 
be  granted  a  liquor  tax  certificate  within  five  years  of  the 
date  of  such  conviction ;  nor  is  he  permitted  to  have  any 
interest  therein,  or  become  surety  on  any  bond  required 
under  the  act. 

Any  person  convicted  of  a  violation  is  liable  to  an 
extra  penalty  of  $50  for  each  offense,  to  be  recovered  by 
the  state  commissioner  of  excise  in  an  action  brought  in 
any  court  of  record  of  the  State.  The  place  .of  trial  of 
szich  action  may  be  changed  to  any  county  adjoining  the 
county  in  which  the  defendant  resides.  If  judgment  be 
recovered  against  a  certificate-holder,  the  certificate  and 
all  rights  thereunder  are  forfeited. 

County  clerks  are  required  to  furnish  periodical  state- 
ments to  the  Excise  Department  of  orders  and  judgments 
obtained,  indictments,  etc. 

Magistrates  are  required  to  report  all  arrests  for  viola- 
tions, and  the  result  of  the  preliminary  examination  of 
offenders,  to  the  state  commissioner,  as  well  as  to  the  dis- 
trict attorney  of  the  county. 

It    is    the    duty  of    the    special    deputy  commissioners. 


PENALTY  FOR  NEGLECT.  367 

special  agents,  and  of  every  county  treasurer,  as  •well  as  of 
other  local  officers  having  notice  or  knowledge  of  any  vio- 
lation of  the  law,  to  immediately  notify  the  district  attor- 
ney in  the  county  in  which  the  violation  occurs  by  a  sworn 
statement. 

The  penalty  for  neglect  of  public  officers  to  perform  their 
duty  under  this  law  is  a  fine  of  $500  for  each  offense  ;  and 
if  the  officer  is  a  county  treasurer  or  district  attorney,  the 
governor  shall  remove  him  from  office,  Aiiy  citizen  may 
prefer  charges  to  the  governor  against  such  officers.  There 
are  clauses  in  the  law  having  the  purpose  to  avoid  a  trial 
by  jury  of  excise  cases  wherever  possible. 

Note.  In  passing  on  the  constitutidn.'ility  of  the  new  law,  as 
it  was  soon  called  upon  to  do,  the  Supreme  Court  used  the  fol- 
lowing language  :  "  It  (the  Liquor  Tax  Law)  is  primarily  and 
essentially  an  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  State  over  a 
particular  trade  or  business.  .  .  .  Taxation  is  but  an  incident, 
but  one  and  not  the  chief,  although  a  necessary,  element  of  the 
legislation.  Regulation  of  the  traffic  is  the  fundamental  pur- 
pose of  the  law."  (People  ex.  rel.  Einsfell  v.  Muny,  Appel. 
Div.  Rep.  ]\Iay,  1896,  p.  187.) 

In  confirming  the  above  ojiinion,  the  Court  of  Appeals  said, 
among  other  things  :  "  An  exaction  imposed  as  a  condition  of 
the  right  to  carry  on  a  business  dangerous  to  public  morals,  or 
which  may  involve  public  burdens,  by  way  of  discouragement 
or  regulation,  is  not  in  any  proper  sense  a  tax."  (New  York 
Rep.  149,  p.  367.) 

According  to  the  opinion  just  cited,  the  title  "  Liquor  Tax 
Law"  would  seem  to  be  a  misnomer.  If  " primarily  and  essen- 
tially an  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  State,"  it  is  essen- 
tially a  license  law,  and  not  of  the  same  character  as  the  Dow 
law  of  Ohio.  The  latter  imposes  a  uniform  tax  in  all  parts  of 
the  State  for  each  place  in  which  licjuor  is  sold  by  any  person, 
corporation,  or  copartnership,  the  only  requisite  for  engaging 
in  liquor-selling  being  payment  of  the  tax.  The  Liquor  Tax 
Law  assumes  the  illegality  of  the  business  of  selling  liquors, 
and  imposes  penalties  upon  persons  engaged  therein  without 
obtaining  the  certificate  required ;  it  prescribes  who  shall  and 
who  shall  not  engage  in  such   business,  and  fixes  a  certain 


368      OPERATION    OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

standard  of  fitness.  The  Dow  law,  on  the  other  hand,  assumes 
the  business  to  be  legal,  but  imposes  a  burden  for  the  benefit 
of  the  public  on  all  who  wish  to  follow  it.  The  new  law  dif- 
fers from  the  one  preceding  it,  not  so  much  in  the  regulation  of 
the  traffic  in  liquors  as  in  the  manner  of  enforcing  such  regu- 
lations, which  is  to  say  that  the  power  of  administering  excise 
affairs  was  diverted  from  local  authorities  and  vested  in  a  state 
commissioner  and  his  subordinates. 


THE    LIQUOR    TAX    LAW    IN    1896. 

Before  examining  in  detail  the  present  workings  of  the 
law,  its  measure  of  enforcement  and  effects,  some  space 
must  be  devoted  to  the  nine  months  elapsing  before  any 
defects  discovered  in  it  could  be  remedied  by  legislative 
enactment.  These  months,  the  latter  part  of  1896,  were 
the  formative  period  of  the  new  regime.  The  good  or  bad 
in  the  law  was  revealed,  the  scope  and  policy  of  the  State 
Department  of  Excise  were  fixed,  and  the  trade  had  time 
to  adjust  itself  somewhat  to  the  new  conditions. 

At  the  ovitset  the  dealers  considered  themselves  griev- 
ously injured.  A  more  than  trebling  of  the  annual  tribute 
of  the  saloon-keeper  (speaking  of  the  cities  in  which  the 
highest  fees  were  paid),  without  any  discrimination  in  favor 
of  ale  and  beer  sellers,  at  once  drove  the  weaker  men  to  the 
wall.  The  larger  the  city,  the  more  certain  was  this  their 
fate.  Under  the  former  law,  the  small  beer-shop  keeper 
had  led  a  hand-to-mouth  existence,  and  had  worried  along 
with  the  aid  of  the  brewer  who  advanced  money  and  goods. 
Now  such  assistance  was  denied  to  many,  for  it  did  not 
pay.  But  his  more  fortunate  fellows  were  not  slow  in  per- 
ceiving that  the  severity  of  the  new  restrictions  had  been 
exaggerated.  The  first  Sundays  under  the  Raines  law  were 
unusually  and  universally  "  dry "  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  No  one  knew  what  open  defiance  might  lead  to. 
The  side-door  nuisance  had  to  some  extent  become  imprac- 
ticable under  the  provision  requiring  the  bar  and  interior  of 


LAW  IN  1896.  369 

saloons  to  be  exposed  to  view  from  the  street  during  the 
hours  when  sale  was  prohibited.  But  some  dealers,  with 
close  political  connections  at  Albany,  had  discovered  before 
the  passage  of  the  law  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from 
the  possession  of  a  hotel  license,  and  had  obtained  such 
from  the  excise  boards.  The  general  rush  for  licenses 
during  the  last  days  of  the  excise  boards  appears,  however, 
to  have  been  due  to  the  discrimination  of  the  new  law  in 
favor  of  premises  which  prior  to  its  enactment  had  been 
occupied  as  saloons  or  liquor-selling  hotels ;  these  were 
exempt  from  the  200  feet  clause  and  other  disqualifications. 
When  it  finally  became  settled  that,  in  order  to  sell  liquor 
on  Sundays  with  impunity,  it  was  necessary  only  to  run  an 
establishment  having  a  few  extra  rooms  and  facilities  for 
serving  a  sandwich,  the  "  Raines  law  hotels "  sprung  up 
like  mushrooms.  By  November,  1896,  the  police  of  New 
York  city  reported  to  a  Senate  committee,  appointed  to 
investigate  the  workings  of  the  new  law,  the  existence  of 
2,378  liquor-selling  hotels,  of  which  2,105  were  stated  to 
be  offsprings  of  the  law,  and  the  remaining  273  bona  fide 
hotels.  In  Brooklyn  the  hotel  list  had  swelled  from  13 
to  1,474,  and  in  other  cities  a  similar  condition  prevailed. 
With  a  uniform  tax  on  all  sales  for  consumption  on  the 
premises,  the  law  seemed  to  extend  an  invitation  to  dealers 
to  take  advantage  of  the  easy  conditions  of  its  hotel  clause. 
It  permitted  hotel-keepers  to  sell  liquor  on  Sundays  to 
guests,  with  their  meals  or  in  their  rooms,  but  not  in  the 
bar-room ;  and  a  hotel  was  defined  as  a  place  "  Avhich  is 
regularly  kept  open  for  the  feeding  and  lodging  of  guests, 
and  in  which  there  shall  be  at  least  ten  furnished  bedrooms 
for  their  occupancy  if  in  a  city  or  incorporated  village,  and 
six  bedrooms  if  in  any  other  place."  It  became  patent 
that  the  intent  of  the  law,  if  it  did  truly  intend  to  stop 
Sunday  selling,  was  evaded  in  thousands  of  places.  "  Raines 
law  hotels  "  became  the  jest  of  the  country.     The  authori- 


370      OrERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 

ties  were  in  a  quandary.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
the  Department  of  Excise  washed  its  hands  of  all  responsi- 
bility for  the  enforcement  of  general  hotel  regulations.  Its 
application  forms  did  not  compel  the  applicant  to  state 
whether  he  intended  to  conduct  a  hotel  or  not.  It  was 
ruled  to  be  outside  its  province  to  inspect  the  premises  to 
be  taxed  before  issuing  a  certificate.  Besides,  such  a  course 
was  discovered  to  be  impossible  on  account  of  the  small 
number  of  special  agents  and  the  large  number  of  hotels, 
!Nor  did  it  seem  competent  for  the  police  to  compel  observ- 
ance to  the  hotel  clause,  so  loosely  was  the  act  drawn.  In 
New  York  city  the  aid  of  the  Building  Department  and  of 
the  Board  of  Health  was  invoked  in  turn.  The  latter  was 
powerless,  and  the  resources  of  the  former  were  not  equal 
to  the  emergency.  After  all,  the  evasions  of  the  building 
laws  were  comparatively  trifling,  and,  moreover,  notice  of 
ten  days  had  to  be  given  alleged  violators,  which  afforded 
enough  time  for  alterations.  Again,  the  Building  Depart- 
ment could  only  bring  civil  action  against  offenders.  In 
other  places  there  was  even  less  authority  for  interference 
with  hotels.  In  short,  the  "  fake  "  hotels,  to  speak  in  the 
local  vernacular,  could  only  be  legislated  out  of  business, 
except  in  a  few  instances. 

Another  product  of  the  times  was  the  "  Raines  Club." 
Following  an  earlier  decision,  the  courts  held  that  the  sale 
of  liquor  to  the  members  of  a  club  is  not  "  trafficking  in 
liquors."  Taking  advantage  of  this  ruling,  many  men  who 
held  certificates  surrendered  them  and  organized  and  in- 
corporated so-called  social  clubs,  the  same  individual  often 
representing  the  president,  treasurer,  and  steward.  Others 
transformed  their  saloons  into  clubs,  arranging  with  their 
customers  to  "  distribute  "  drinks  to  them  on  Sundays  and 
during  prohibited  hours.  The  extent  of  this  flourishing 
and  very  profitable  business  is  apparent  from  data  furnished 
by  the  secretary  of  state.      From  May  1,  1896,  to  January 


LAW  IN   1896.  371 

13,  1897,  he  chartered  3,711  so-called  clubs,  as  against  845 
during  the  year  May  1,  1895,  to  May  1,  189G.  A  majority 
of  the  clubs  were  of  course  located  in  the  cities  where  the 
liquor  tax  is  largest.  So  long  as  they  did  not  violate  the 
terms  of  the  charters,  the  clubs  were  necessarily  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  law.  The  loss  of  revenue  through  the  un- 
taxed but  legally  protected  traffic  was  very  large.  Another 
complaint  was  that  the  club  business  engendered  a  compe- 
tition with  which  law-abiding  dealers  could  ill  cope,  unless 
they  too  became  hotel  proprietors. 

All  things  considered,  when  the  law  had  stood  the  first 
half-year  the  trade  ceased  to  berate  it  violently.  To  be 
sure,  many  small  dealers  had  been  crushed,  but  not  without 
advantage  to  those  remaining.  Sunday  selling  was  practi- 
cally legalized  to  such  an  extent  that  it  helped  to  offset  the 
heavier  burden  of  the  tax. 

As  usual,  the  increased  penalties  did  not  expedite  the 
convictions  for  excise  offenses.  From  April  1  to  November 
14, 1896,  the  district  attorney  of  New  York  city  had  received 
1,740  complaints  of  violations  which  resulted  in  485  indict- 
ments and  941  dismissals  by  the  grand  jury ;  314  com- 
plaints were  not  acted  on ;  226  trials  resulted  in  17  con- 
victions ;  39  accused  persons  pleaded  guilty,  and  13  were 
discharged  by  General  Sessions ;  207  cases  remained  pend- 


ing. 


The  efforts  of  the  Excise  Department  to  enforce  the  law 
during  the  time  in  question  resulted  in  78  convictions  on 
411  verified  complaints  submitted  to  district  attorneys ;  and 
fines  were  imposed  to  the  amount  of  $4,636.00. 

The  first  nine  months  under  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  had 
demonstrated  that  its  capacity  for  producing  revenue  had 
been  underrated,  that  it  had  perceptibly  diminished  the 
number  of  saloons,  and  that  it  was  ripe  for  amendments  in 
very  essential  respects. 

The  Republican  convention  of  1896  had  praised  the  law, 


372      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK    LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

particularly  its  revenue  features.  The  amendments  pro- 
posed in  the  legislature  of  1897  were  not  adopted  without 
a  struggle.  It  is  of  little  interest  to  follow  the  protracted 
wranglings  of  the  legislators,  except  to  note  that  the  evo- 
lution of  the  law,  as  is  usually  the  case,  was  not  determined 
so  much  hy  design  as  by  circumstances  and  events.  The 
tax  feature  had  won  a  rare  measure  of  popularity  among 
up-country  Republicans,  who,  nevertheless,  professed  to  be 
shocked  at  the  gross  evasions  disclosed,  and,  in  order  to 
keep  faith  with  their  constituents,  were  forced  to  insist 
upon  remedies  in  the  nature  of  amendments.  In  vain  the 
city  Republicans  pleaded,  and  predicted  political  disaster 
in  case  the  screws  were  again  turned.  Inaction  had  become 
impossible.  Its  pretensions  as  champions  of  temperance 
and  Sunday  observance  had  to  be  made  good  by  the  con- 
trolling faction.  So  the  law  was  amended  in  its  most  vul- 
nerable points ;  and  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Liquor  Tax 
Law  attained  a  form  very  unlike  the  original  draft  pre- 
sented to  the  legislature,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the 
abstract  already  given. 

Had  moral  issues  carried  the  day  in  the  second  battle 
over  the  Raines  law  ?  In  certain  respects  the  act  seemed 
to  be  strengthened,  and  the  discovered  loopholes  to  be 
closed  up.  Although  the  punitive  sections  had  manifestly 
overreached  the  mark,  they  were  made  more  severe.  By 
placing  the  clubs  on  an  equal  footing  with  saloons,  yet 
ameliorating  the  status  of  those  incorporated  previous  to 
May  6,  1895,  by  exempting  them  from  certain  restrictions, 
a  "  million  dollars  in  taxes  had  been  recovered."  This 
was  an  unavoidable  change.  But  the  saloon-hotel  was  suf- 
fered to  remain.  In  the  course  of  its  investigations,  the 
Senate  Committee  had  heard  this  new  social  institution 
denounced  in  unsparing  terms  by  those  best  acquainted 
witli  it  and  on  purely  moral  grounds.  A  simple  means  of 
abolishing  it  and   stopping   Sunday  selling  lay  at  hand,  — 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF   EXCISE.  373 

that  of  taxing  it  out  of  existence.  'No  legal  obstacle  stood 
in  the  way,  since  the  act  had  been  pronounced  to  be  vir- 
tually a  license  law.  But  politics  and  revenue  were  the 
issues,  not  morals. 

THE    EXCISE    DEPARTMENT. 

The  law  which  went  into  effect  March  23,  1896,-  ter- 
minated all  licenses  granted  by  excise  boards  on  the  30th 
of  June,  after  which  date  liquor  could  not  be  legally  sold 
except  under  authority  of  a  tax  certificate.  Scant  time 
was  thus  left  for  the  organization  of  the  new  Department 
of  Excise.  It  was  suddenly  called  into  being  to  do  the 
work  formerly  divided  between  nine  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  boards  of  excise,  and  was  wholly  without  "  forms, 
decisions,  and  precedents  for  the  conduct  of  its  business." 
That  a  fairly  smooth-running  machine  was  before  long  set 
in  motion,  notwithstanding  the  many  perplexing  questions 
to  be  decided,  the  vexatious  delays  in  procuring  a  working 
force,  and  the  magnitude  of  the  work  to  be  systematized, 
reflects  much  credit  on  the  new  department. 

As  now  constituted,  the  Department  of  Excise  consists 
of  a  state  commissioner,  a  deputy  commissioner,  an  acting 
and  an  assistant  acting  deputy  commissioner,  secretary, 
general  counsel,  and  a  clerical  force.  There  are  three  dis- 
tinct branches  in  New  York  city,  Brooklyn,  and  Buffalo, 
each  headed  by  a  special  deputy  commissioner  with  his  as- 
sistants and  one  attorney.  In  addition  there  are  sixty 
special  agents  and  fifty-seven  county  treasurers,  the  duties 
of  the  latter  being  the  same  as  those  of  a  deputy  commis- 
sioner. The  appointive  power  of  the  state  commissioner  is 
absolute.  He  not  only  selects  his  immediate  subordinates 
and  the  special  agents  and  attorneys,  but  all  clerks  in  the 
branch  offices ;  in  short,  every  one  connected  with  the  de- 
partment, except,  of  course,  the  county  treasurers  and  their 
assistants.     Furthermore,  it  is   left  with  him   to   fix   the 


374      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

bonds  and  approve  the  sureties  of  each  of  his  appointees, 
except  the  deputy  commissioner.  His  power  of  removal  is 
also  very  explicit. 

The  law  j^rescribes  with  some  minuteness  the  functions 
of  the  department,  and  in  an  unprecedented  manner  cen- 
tralizes the  control  of  the  excise  business  in  one  man,  the 
state  commissioner.  He  is  left  the  sole  interpreter  of  the 
intent  and  scope  of  the  law ;  he  directs  the  goings  and  do- 
ings of  the  sixty  special  agents ;  and  every  detail  of  the 
work  of  his  subordinates,  including  the  fifty-seven  county 
treasurers,  must  be  submitted  to  him.  Such  power  and 
authority  have  never  before  been  vested  in  one  man  under 
the  liquor  laws  of  any  of  our  States.  It  is  a  pertinent 
question,  therefore,  how  this  power  is  used. 

At  the  outset  the  state  commissioner  took  the  ground 
that  his  duties  are  chiefly  those  of  a  fiscal  agent  concerned 
with  the  proper  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes.  Be- 
yond compelling  their  payment,  detecting  evasions,  and 
accounting  for  the  money  received  and  its  distribution,  his 
functions  do  not  extend.  It  is  not  surprising  that  many 
persons  awaited  with  some  apprehension  the  stand  which 
the  department  would  take  in  the  matter  of  issuing  tax 
certificates.  To  be  sure,  the  law  seemed  explicit  enough 
in  the  provision  which  deprives  the  county  treasurers  and 
other  ofiicials  of  discretionary  power  in  granting  or  refus- 
ing certificates,  and  declares  that,  when  the  formalities  re- 
quired have  been  observed,  the  official  concerned  "  shall  at 
once  issue  a  certificate."  Still,  if  the  restrictions  on  the 
traffic  implied  in  the  lengthy  application  for  a  certificate 
were  to  prove  of  some  practical  value,  it  seemed  not  un- 
reasonable that  the  truth  of  the  statements  made  by  the 
applicant  should  be  inquired  into.  And  if  the  law  pur- 
posely designed  to  take  away  from  the  officials  their  dis- 
cretionary power,  could  not  such  inquiry  be  made  a  duty 
of  the  confidential  agents  of  the  state  commissioner  ?     It 


THE   DEPARTMENT  OF  EXCISE.  375 

was  also  a  question  whether  an  official  who,  as  it  is  easily 
supposable,  might  in  some  instances  have  personal  know- 
ledge to  the  effect  that  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  applica- 
tion were  not  true,  should  act  on  such  knowledge  and 
refuse  to  issue  a  certificate.  On  these  questions  "  the 
department  has  ruled,  from  its  organization,  that  the  the- 
ory and  intention  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  is,  that  the  ap- 
plicant must  assume  the  responsibility  and  furnish  the  facts 
which  entitle  him  to  a  tax  certificate ;  that,  if  he  con- 
forms to  the  act  in  making  the  requisite  statements,  pro- 
duces the  consent  required  in  certain  places,  files  a  bond 
which  is  correct  in  form  with  sufficient  sureties,  and  pays 
the  tax,  the  said  officer  shall  at  once  issue  the  certificate ; 
that  the  law  expressly  intends  to  limit  the  discretion  of 
the  officer  issuing  the  certificate  to  passing  upon  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  form  of  the  application  at  hand  and  the 
sufficiency  of  the  sureties.  This  being  done,  the  certificate 
must  be  issued,  iinless  the  officer  has  evidence  at  the  time  of 
presentation  of  the  application  that  the  applicant  is  debarred 
by  being  under  some  of  the  liabilities  named  in  sections 
twenty-two,  twenty-three,  and  twenty-four,  which  provide 
who  cannot  hold  certificates,  or  some  other  facts  appear  on 
the  face  of  the  papers  which  defeat  his  application.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  act  which  shows  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
the  legislature  that  special  agents  or  other  officials  should  be 
sent  out  to  make  investigation  or  inspection  before  issuing 
tax  certificates.  The  whole  theory  of  the  act  is  against  any 
such  intention.  The  opposite  construction  would  re-inject 
into  the  law  the  feature  of  placing  the  discretion  with  some 
person  to  refuse  or  grant  certificates  to  applicants,  the  ex- 
ercise of  which  power,  or  so-called  discretion,  gave  rise  to 
notorious  abuse  under  the  old  system,  and  enabled  excise 
boards  and  their  employees  to  use  this  discretion  for  per- 
sonal and  political  purposes."  (Annual  Keport  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Excise,  1896,  pp.  28,  29.) 


376      OPERATION    OF   NEW    YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 

Under  the  above  interpretation  of  the  law,  which  in 
truth  seems  the  only  one  admissible,  the  evils  arising  from 
arbitrary  action  on  the  part  of  excise  officials  have  certainly 
been  minimized.  Since  the  law  is  absolutely  silent  on  the 
question  of  moral  character  and  fitness  of  applicants,  ex- 
cept that  felons  are  debarred,  the  discretion  an  official  may 
allow  himself  through  personal  knowledge  of  the  applicant 
is  very  limited.  With  regard  to  the  special  agents,  the 
department  holds  that  the  law  requires  them,  "  under  the 
direction  of  the  commissioner,  to  assist  the  deputy  com- 
missioner and  county  treasurers  in  the  collection  of  the 
tax,  to  detect  and  prevent  violations  or  evasions  of  the  law 
which  impair  the  revenue,  and  to  enforce  and  collect  fines 
and  penalties  for  its  transgression,  with  such  other  services 
as  they  can  and  may  properly  render  in  assisting  the  proper 
peace  officers  and  prosecuting  officials  in  the  general  en- 
forcement of  the  law."  (Ibid.  p.  23.)  The  law,  of  course, 
never  contemplated  that  the  special  agents  should  super- 
sede the  peace  officers  in  enforcing  its  general  provisions 
and  making  arrests  for  simple  violations  of  the  penal  code. 
In  order  to  do  this,  a  small  army  of  special  agents  would 
have  been  required  instead  of  a  scant  sixty,  a  number  so 
small  that  it  does  not  suffice  even  for  a  superficial  surveil- 
lance of  the  traffic  in  a  city  like  New  York.  The  magni- 
tude of  the  task  of  supervising  the  selling  of  liquor  had 
evidently  not  dawned  upon  the  minds  of  the  rural  legisla- 
tors ;  for  some  of  them  certainly  did  entertain  the  notion 
that  the  special  agents  were  to  assist  locally  in  enforcing 
police  and  peace  regulations. 

The  special  deputy  commissioners  and  special  agents 
do  not  seem  to  be  specifically  called  upon  to  bring  about 
the  revocation  of  certificates,  whether  for  the  reason  that 
the  certificate  was  fraudulently  obtained  or  because  of  a 
violation  of  the  act.  The  law  simply  says  that  "any  citi- 
zen "  may  petition  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  an 


THE    DEPARTMENT   OF   EXCISE.  377 

order  revoking  or  canceling  a  tax  certificate.  The  deputy 
commissioner  and  county  treasurers  have  no  authority  to 
revoke  certificates ;  nor  may  they  indeed  cancel  one  that 
has  been  revoked  by  an  order  of  the  court,  but  must  for- 
ward it  to  the  state  commissioner  for  cancellation.  Since 
"  the  department  holds  that  its  sole  province  is  purely  exe- 
cutive, —  that  its  duties  are  chiefly  of  a  fiscal  character  " 
(Ibid.  p.  24),  and  "it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  depart- 
ment not  to  interfere  with  local  officials  in  the  execution 
of  the  law,  but  to  give  such  help  as  is  within  its  province 
and  power  when  requested  "  (Ibid.  p.  30),  it  is  plain  that 
enforcement  of  the  law  is  left  almost  entirely  in  the  hands 
of  the  local  police.  When,  however,  a  violation  concerns 
the  payment  of  the  tax,  the  department  expects  to  lend  a 
hand. 

Beyond  doubt,  the  policy  of  the  department  as  outlined 
has  been  carried  out  honestly  and  in  good  faith.  To  the 
chagrin  of  some  of  the  leaders,  the  manifest  purpose  of  the 
controlling  Republican  faction  to  create  a  "  liquor  ma- 
chine"  was  defeated, — a  fact  now  being  used  to  the  ad- 
vantage of  other  leaders.  The  governor  decided  the  future 
fate  of  the  department  when,  in  nominating  the  present 
commissioner  of  excise,  he  did  not  heed  the  wishes  of 
those  desiring  to  place  the  department  in  the  hands  of 
one  who  would  run  it  as  an  adjunct  to  his  party,  while 
incidentally  he  collected  the  revenues.  A  man  of  integ- 
rity and  good  intentions  was  chosen.  The  fact  that  the 
department  did  not  become  a  mere  political  machine  was 
not  due  to  lack  of  design,  but  partly  to  the  independence 
of  the  executive  and  partly  to  accident.  The  more  impor- 
tant positions  under  the  department  were,  of  course,  doled 
out  as  patronage,  commanded  more  or  less  by  men  closely 
identified  with  the  passage  of  the  new  law.  A  distinct 
attempt  was  also   made  to  appoint   only  political  heelers 


378      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

as  special  agents,  but  the  action  of  a  state  official  fore- 
stalled it.  While  the  department  may  at  present  use  its 
influence  to  some  extent  in  furthering  the  political  for- 
tunes of  individuals,  it  cannot  be  said  to  show  activity 
in  party  politics. 


OPERATION   OF   THE   LIQUOR   TAX  LAW  IN 
SOME   CITIES. 

KEW    YORK    CITY. 

The  present  method  of  issuing  certificates  is  in  strik- 
ing contrast  to  the  preceding  method  of  granting  licenses. 
Formerly  the  excise  board  sat  as  a  court,  passing  judg- 
ment on  the  merits  and  demerits  of  applicants,  hearing 
complaints  and  revoking  licenses.  All  transactions  were 
public,  and  their  number  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  between  seventy  and  eighty  thousand  persons  visited 
the  offices  of  the  board  in  the  course  of  a  year.  Now  the 
deputy  commissioner  simply  passes  on  the  formal  correct- 
ness of  the  application  and  other  documents.  So  far  as 
he  is  concerned,  all  comers  are  practically  served  alike,  — 
they  pay  the  money  and  take  the  certificate.  An  advantage 
claimed  for  this  system  is  that  it  prevents  officials  from 
discriminating  between  persons,  and  cuts  off  the  opportunity 
for  political  and  pecuniary  blackmail ;  and  this  is  doubtless 
true  with  respect  to  the  new  Excise  Department.  Its  dis- 
advantages, on  the  other  hand,  are  that  it  is  as  possible 
now  as  under  the  old  system  for  the  most  objectionable 
characters,  for  keepers  of  houses  of  ill-fame  and  other  dives, 
to  secure  the  protection  of  a  license  or  certificate.  Further- 
more, so  far  as  the  police  are  concerned,  the  temjDtation  to 
enter  into  foul  bargains  with  certificate-holders  has  not 
been  lessened  one  whit.     Lest  this  statement  appear  un- 


LIQUOK   TAX    CERTIFICATES.  379 

warranted,  it  must  be  reiterated  that  in  New  York  city 
the  deputy  commissioner  of  excise  does  not  question, 
either  before  or  after  issuing  certificates,  the  truth  of  the 
matters  set  forth  in  the  application.  Thus,  if  a  keeper  of 
a  disorderly  house  obtains  a  certificate,  —  and  the  Avriter 
knows  this  to  occur,  —  the  police  are  left  to  settle  scores 
with  such  a  person.  Again,  if  a  man  wishes  to  open  a 
Raines  hotel,  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  notify  the 
deputy  commissioner  of  his  intention.  Having  obtained 
the  certificate,  he  may  proceed  afterwards  to  make  arrange- 
ments for  a  hotel  business ;  and  the  excise  officer  remains 
in  ignorance  of  his  purpose.  It  rests  with  the  police  and 
the  Department  of  Buildings  to  see  that  the  legal  restric- 
tions on  hotel  buildings  are  observed.  Aside  from  its  be- 
ing outside  his  province  to  make  any  inspection  of  places, 
the  deputy  commissioner  could  not  do  so  adequately  even 
if  he  had  all  the  sixty  special  agents  at  his  command. 
Much  less  can  discriminations  be  made  in  issuing  certifi- 
cates to  persons  who  hold  a  proper  club  charter. 

In  illustration  of  the  ignorance  about  the  present  state 
of  the  liquor  traffic,  except  as  to  how  many  certificates  are 
issued,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  neither  through  the  ex- 
cise officials  nor  through  the  police  is  it  possible  to  ascer- 
tain the  number  of  hotels,  real  or  "  fake,"  in  which  liquor 
is  sold  every  day  in  the  week.  Even  less  is  known  of  the 
clubs. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  character  of  the  trade  has 
been  elevated  by  transferring  the  important  function  of 
issuing  licenses  or  certificates  from  boards  endowed  with 
discretionary  power  to  persons  acting  purely  as  fiscal  agents, 
except  so  far  as  it  is  now  removed  from  the  influence  of 
venal  boards.  But  if  the  abolition  of  the  boards  with 
their  corrupt  practices  has  been  a  moral  gain,  it  is  to  be 
feared  that  temptation  to  dishonesty  besets  the  police  per- 
haps  more   insidiously   than    ever,   owing   to    the    greater 


380      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

secrecy  observed  in  issuing  certificates,  and  because  the 
public  has  no  means  of  knowing  how  far  important  regu- 
lations, for  instance  those  governing  hotels,  are  observed. 
Under  other  circumstances  the  sureties  on  the  bond  exe- 
cuted by  the  applicant  might  be  regarded  as  a  guarantee  of 
his  good  character,  but  hardly  in  New  York  city,  where 
bonds  are  for  the  most  part  furnished  liquor  dealers  by  one 
surety  company.  ^ 

With  regard  to  the  transfer  or  sale  of  certificates,  which 
is  a  rapidly  growing  business,  the  deputy  commissioner 
exercises  an  extra-legal  discretion  requiring  a  few  words 
of  explanation.  Under  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  there  is  no- 
thing to  prevent  a  dishonest  saloon-keeper  from  surrender- 
ing his  tax  certificate  and  getting  the  jiro  rata  amount  of 
tax  refunded,  thus  leaving  in  the  lurch  the  brewer  who 
paid  the  tax  for  him  in  the  first  instance ;  or  he  may,  with 
equal  detriment  to  the  brewer,  transfer  his  tax  certificate 
to  some  one  on  whom  the  brewer  has  no  claim,  and  who 
may  take  his  trade  to  a  competing  brewery.  Having  large 
pecuniary  interests  at  stake  in  the  saloons,  the  brewers 
early  became  alarmed  at  this  unpleasant  prospect,  and  cast 
about  for  some  means  of  protection.  It  was  currently  re- 
ported in  the  press  that,  in  return  for  a  recognition  of  their 
claim  on  tax  certificates  in  certain  cases,  the  brewers  would 
see  that  the  bulk  of  the  bond  business  was  given  to  the 
surety  company  referred  to  above.  There  was  nothing  in 
the  law  to  warrant  the  protection  sought,  and  the  deputy 

1  The  "Fidelity'  Surety  and  Deposit  Company  of  Maryland  "  has 
almost  a  moiiopol^y  of  the  liquor  bond  business,  through  intimate  faniilj' 
connections  with  the  "boss"  of  the  Republican  "machine  "  and  the  re- 
puted author  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law,  not  only  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn, 
but  in  many  other  parts  of  the  State.  Being  organized  under  the  laws  of 
another  State,  it  was  debarred  from  doing  business  in  New  York,  but  for 
"family  reasons"  this  disability  was  removed  through  a  special  act  of 
the  legislature.  Other  companies  have  come  into  the  field  since.  The 
latest  comer  is  backed,  so  it  is  said,  b}'  a  powerful  Tammany  man,  and 
expects  to  absorb  most  of  the  local  business. 


SALOON   MORTGAGES.  381 

commissioner  declared  his  inability  to  act  as  desired.  At 
the  present  time,  however,  no  tax  certificate  in  which  a 
brewer  is  pecuniarily  interested  can  be  transferred  or  sur- 
rendered without  the  latter's  consent.  His  "  claim  "  is 
recognized  as  valid,  the  application  being  indorsed  to  this 
effect,  or  other  written  stipulation  made. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  few  of  the  smaller  dealers 
are  their  own  masters  in  the  sense  of  not  being  under 
heavy  pecuniary  obligation  to  others.  If  not  directly  se- 
lected to  act  as  salesmen  for  the  brewer,  they  are  unable 
to  pay  the  tax,  rent,  fixtures,  etc.,  out  of  their  own  pockets. 
The  wealthy  brewer  is  their  natural  protector,  since,  in  re- 
turn for  his  aid,  they  can  give  him  the  exclusive  privi- 
lege of  supplying  the  brand  of  beer  to  be  sold.  As  fur- 
ther security  against  loss,  the  brewer  not  only  controls  the 
transfer  of  the  tax  certificate,  but  takes  a  chattel  mortgage 
on  the  saloon  fixtures,  often  vastly  in  excess  of  their 
value. 

The  results  of  an  examination  of  the  chattel  mortgages 
on  saloon  fixtures  filed  by  brewers  during  the  year  1897, 
as  reported  in  the  "  Real  Estate  Record  and  Guide,"  are 
given  in  a  table  below.  It  does  not  pretend  to  be  ex- 
haustive, and  necessarily  takes  into  account  only  the  mort- 
gagors who  could  be  easily  identified,  while  a  host  of  un- 
identified persons  holding  mortgages,  generally  in  small 
sums,  were  excluded.  Some  out-of-town  firms  are  repre- 
sented in  the  table.  The  mortgagors  are  designated  by 
numbers,  and  ranked  according  to  the  value  of  the  mort- 
gages held  by  each. 


382      OPERATION   OF  NEW  YORK   LIQUOR  TAX   LAW. 


No. 


Number  of 

Number  of 

gagors. 

Chattel 
Mortgages 

Value. 

Mortgagors. 

Chattel 
Mortgages 

Value. 

held. 

held. 

1 

461 

$1,410,175 

No 

23 

41 

$64,157 

2 

390 

1,272,664 

24 

31 

59,116 

3 

284 

572,173 

25 

42 

57,367 

4 

97 

310,179 

26 

40 

47,708 

5 

76 

288,618 

27 

29 

39,126 

6 

145 

270,315 

28 

41 

30,265 

7 

91 

204,536 

29 

45 

28,332 

8 

133 

256,008 

30 

7 

14,362 

9 

106 

181,435 

31 

11 

12,750 

10 

96 

164,923 

32 

3 

10,200 

11 

50 

157,423 

33 

1 

8,991 

12 

76 

147,735 

34 

3 

8,500 

13 

90 

138,991 

35 

4 

7,577 

14 

96 

1.37,128 

36 

7 

5,410 

15 

57 

134,082 

37 

4 

3,940 

16 

48 

116,909 

38 

5 

3,900 

17 

69 

100,750 

39 

1 

3,000 

18 

49 

88,417 

40 

3 

2,200 

19 

51 

84,505 

41 

1 

800 

20 
21 

47 

68  307 

47 

65,936 

2,906 

$6,703,362 

22 

28 

64,362 

To  what  extent  the  table  justifies  the  inference  that  the 
saloon-keeper  is  but  a  man  of  "  straw,"  that  the  brewer 
owns  him,  and  that  the  control  of  so  many  saloons  is  equi- 
valent to  the  concentration  of  an  enormous  and  dangerous 
power  in  a  few  hands,  may  for  the  most  part  be  left  unar- 
gued. The  danger  of  this  power  seems  overrated.  So  far 
as  any  legislation  affecting  the  liquor  trade  is  concerned,  the 
interests  of  the  dealers  and  brewers  are  identical,  whether 
they  are  held  together  by  pecuniary  obligations  or  not. 
Furthermore,  the  dealer  is  not  always  either  an  abject  or 
an  honest  creature.  As  he  does  not  hesitate  to  cheat  the 
brewer  in  money  matters  on  occasion,  so  he  would  not  hes- 
itate to  act  against  him  politically,  were  that  course  likely 
to  be  of  particular  benefit  to  himself.  There  is  no  evidence 
to  show  that  the  interests  of  brewers  in  saloons  offer  any 
impediment  to  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  Aside  from 
a  desire  for  respectability  which  must  be  recognized,  it  is 
good  policy  for  them  to  have  the  statutory  regulations  ob- 
served.    Why  the  purveyors  of  spirituous   liquors  do  not 


LICENSES    UNDER   THE    OLD   LAW.  383 

become  financially  interested  in  saloons,  in  the  same  manner 
and  to  the  same  extent  as  brewers,  is  ol)vious. 

Since,  under  the  Liquor  Tax  Law,  the  principal  require- 
ment of  an  applicant  for  a  tax  certificate  is  that  he  produce 
the  cash,  the  only  effective  barrier  (the  consent  clause  can- 
not be  considered  as  such)  to  a  multiplication  of  saloons, 
and,  for  that  matter,  of  Raines  hotels,  is  the  amount  of  the 
tax.  The  fact  that  the  higher  tax  rate  has  not  only  pre- 
vented an  increase  of  liquor  shops,  but  directly  and  materi- 
ally reduced  their  number,  has  been  hailed  with  much  satis- 
faction, and  therefore  merits  close  inquiry.  For  the  sake 
of  comparison,  some  data  from  the  Report  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Excise  for  the  year  ending  December  31,  1895, 
must  be  given.  The  licenses  of  each  class  and  grade  issued 
during  that  year  were  as  follow^ :  — 


Hotel  licenses     .     .    -.     . 

Hotel  licenses  * 

Saloon  liquor  licenses  •  , 
Saloon  restaurant  licenses  , 
Saloon  ale-and-beer  licenses 
Storekeepers'  licenses  .  .  . 
Druggists'  licenses  .  .  .  . 
Additional  licenses  .  .  . 
Additional  licenses  ^   .    .    . 


Class. 

Grade. 

Number. 

Pee. 

1 

1 

13 

1500 

1 

2 

270 

300 

2 

A 

6,930 

200 

2 

B 

371 

100 

3 

448 

50 

4 

1,071 

200 

5 

15 

20 

6 

13 

100 

6 

29 

150 

9,160 


Applications  rejected  and  licenses  refused 324 

Applications  canceled  or  withdrawn 848 

On  December  31,  1895,  there  were,  deducting  33  addi- 
tional licenses  (issued  only  to  places  having  a  regular 
license),  9,058  licenses  operative  in  New  York  city.  The 
total  number  selling  for  consumption  on  the  premises  was 

1  Sales  amounting  to  less  than  $40,000  per  annum. 

2  All-night  licenses. 


384      OPERATION   OF  NEW   YORK  LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 

7,984,  or  349  restaurants  without  bars,  362  hotels,^  and 
7,278  saloons ;  of  the  last  mentioned,  387  had  restaurants 
attached.  At  the  time  in  question,  161  places  were  closed, 
but  holding  unexpired  licenses,  they  were,  of  course,  at  lib- 
erty to  open  at  any  time.  The  storekeepers'  licenses  were 
thus  distributed  :  wholesale  and  retail  dealers,  260  ;  gro- 
cers, 614 ;  bottlers,  139 ;  druggists,  39  ;  total,  1,052. 

Statistics  furnished  by  the  state  commissioner  of  excise 
show  that  from  May  1,  1896,  to  April  30,  1897,  7,927  cer- 
tificates were  issued  in  New  York  city,  or  6,997  of  the  first 
grade  (saloons,  hotels,  and  clubs),  878  of  the  second  (for 
consumption  off  the  premises),  and  52  of  the  third  (drug- 
gists').^ 

Taking  the  population  of  the  city  according  to  the  state 
census  of  1892  (1,801,739),  we  get  the  following  proportion 
of  inhabitants  to  licenses  and  certificates  :  — 

1895      1896-07 

Inhabitants  to  each  license  or  certificate  .  .  .  198  227 
Inhabitants  to  each  place  selling  for  consumi^tion 

on  the  premises 225        257 

There  has  thus  been  a  gain  of  twenty-nine  inhabitants 
for  each  place  holding  a  certificate,  and  of  thirty-two  inhab- 
itants for  each  place  where  liquor  is  sold  for  consumption 
on  the  premises.  Or,  if  we  .take  the  number  of  licenses 
(8,906)  issued  during  1895-96,  as  given  in  the  First  Annual 
Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Excise,  and  compare  it  with 

1  The  increase  in  hotel  licenses  in  force  was  caused  by  the  annexation 
of  a  new  district  in  June,  1895,  containing  ninety  hotels,  which  were 
licensed  undfr  the  provisions  of  the  law  applying;  to  towns. 

2  During  the  year  ending  September  30,  1897,  8,310  certificates  of  all 
classes  were  issued  in  New  Yorlc,  an  increase  due  probablj-  to  the  new 
club  law,  and  827  were  surrendered.  On  October  1,  1897,  the  actual  num- 
ber of  certificates  in  force  was  7,686,  but  under  what  subdivisions  they 
belonged  is  not  known.  The  figures  given  above  seem  to  afford  the  fair- 
est basis  for  coniiiarison  obtainable,  and  are  most  nearly  representative  of 
present  conditions,  which  is  the  main  point.  While  no  allowance  is  made 
for  certificates  surrendered,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  the  places  licensed  but 
closed  during  part  of  1895  are  not  taken  into  account. 


REDUCTION   OF   DRINK    PLACES.  385 

the  number  of  certificates  actually  in  force  October  1,  1897, 
we  find  a  difference  of  thirty-two  inhabitants  in  favor  of  the 
new  law.  It  might  be  objected  tbat  the  difference  is  really 
larger,  since  tbe  clubs  are  now  taxed.  But  making  the 
exceedingly  liberal  estimate  of  ninety-four  bona-fide  clubs, 
and  subtracting  this  number  from  the  certificates  in  force  at 
the  above  date,  gives  only  an  increase  of  thirty-seven  in- 
habitants to  each  place  over  the  old  law.  It  is  impossible 
to  demonstrate  precisely  what  benefits  a  community  derives 
even  from  a  marked  diminution  of  places  where  intoxicants 
are  sold.  The  conclusion  that  an  appreciable  decrease  in 
drink-shops  must  of  itself  produce  greater  sobriety  is,  of 
course,  as  fallacious  as  it  is  superficial.  Yet  such  a  de- 
crease has  been  extolled  as  the  most  meritorious  result  of 
the  operation  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  in  New  York  city. 
Although,  as  we  have  shown,  the  average  increase  of  inhab- 
itants to  each  license  seems  rather  insignificant,  it  is  sup- 
posable  that  some  parts  of  the  city  have  gained  more  than 
others,  and  that  the  higher  tax  rate  has  worked  the  greater 
changes  in  the  poorer  districts. 

First  of  those  affected  by  the  new  law  were  the  proprie- 
tors of  small  beer-and-ale  shops.  Nearly  all  of  them,  that 
is  to  say  about  400,  were  driven  out  of  business  by  the  six- 
teenfold  increase  of  the  tax.  As  a  class  these  shops  were 
the  least  obnoxious  of  all,  and  have  so  been  regarded  by 
students  of  social  conditions.  They  were  scattered  through 
the  tenement  districts,  and  did  a  precarious  business  by  sell- 
ing beer,  mostly  by  the  bucket,  for  home  use.  A  further 
notable  diminution  took  place  among  the  liquor  stores  and 
small  restaurants  without  bars.  Probably  about  fifty  per 
cent,  of  the  places  closed  were  ordinary  saloons.  To  what 
extent  the  poor  districts  have  been  affected  by  the  new  law 
can  best  be  shown  by  the  aid  of  simple  charts.  A  section 
of  the  city  containing  a  population  of  nearly  100,000  has 
been  chosen  for  illustration.      Two  thirds  of  it  lie  east  of 


386      OPERATION    OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW, 

the  Bowery,  in  the  most  densely  populated  down-town  tene- 
ment district ;  the  remaining  third  runs  from  the  Bowery 
to  Broadway,  includes  a  portion  of  the  so-called  "  slum  " 
district  investigated  by  the  United  States  Department  of 
Labor,  and  contains  a  goodly  number  of  large  stores  and 
office  buildings.  Although  contiguous,  this  section  may 
properly  be  divided,  according  to  the  principal  nationalities 
represented,  into  a  German,  a  Jewish,  and  an  Italian  quar- 
ter. For  the  present  purpose  it  is  unnecessary  to  describe 
in  detail  the  characteristics  of  these  quarters,  but  the  follow- 
ing enumeration  of  the  principal  nationalities  represented 
and  their  numbers  is  of  direct  interest  :  — 


6 

i 

.s 

J3 

d 

Nationalities. 

> 

s 

'$ 

□0 

|n 

c8 

=3 

i 

1 

^ 

CS 

^ 

l-t 

m 

a 

H 

German  section 

7,609 

6,531 

565 

331 

135 

155 

1,065 

16,391 

Jewish        " 

1G,927 

5,210 

21,443 

553 

404 

512 

4,310 

49,359 

Italian         " 

8,752 

781 

231 

1,765 

121 

16,319 

297 

28,266 

33,288 

12,522 

22,239 

2,649 

660 

16,986 

5,672 

94,016 1 

Most  of  the  native-born  are,  of  course,  of  foreign  parents 
age. 

The  computation  of  the  present  proportion  of  inhabit- 
ants to  saloons  is  made  on  the  basis  of  the  population  of 
1894.  This  is  approximately  correct,  except  for  the  Italian 
quarter,  where  not  a  few  tenement  houses  have  been  torn 
down  for  street  improvement.  Elsewhere  no  appreciable 
movement  of  population  has  occurred.  As  might  be  sup- 
posed, the  largest  reduction  of  saloons  has  taken  place  in 
the  Jewish  section.  Nevertheless,  in  a  district  occupied 
by  a  multitude  of   foreigners  bearing  the   highest  reputa- 

1  For  the  above  statistics  as  well  as  for  tlie  following  charts  showing 
the  number  of  saloons,  etc.,  in  3894,  the  investigator  is  indebted  to  a  pub- 
lication entitled  Social  Stafi.itics  of  a  City  Parish,  issued  by  the  Church 
Temperance  Society,  New  York,  1894. 


EEDUCTION  OF  DRINK  PLACES. 


387 


AV 


tion  for  abstemiousness,  enough  drink-shops  remain  to 
supply  one  for  nearly  all  the  corners  of  the  forty-two 
block.s,  and  a  generous  sprinkling  of  saloon  hotels  in  addi- 
tion;    the  exact  proportion  being  3.7  saloons  to  the  block. 


388      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 


Less  favorable  is  the  showing  for  the  German  and  Italian 
quarters.  To  put  the  whole  matter  diiferently,  under  the 
operation  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law,  lOG.l  inhabitants  have 
been  added  to   each   liquor  shop   in  the   Jewish   quarter, 


REDUCTION   OF   DRINK    PLAGES. 


389 


E.HOUSTON 


ST 


.    00 


(A 


■  ■ 


■  ■ 


STANTON 


■     ■ 


JIVINCTON 


ST 


00 
0 

z 

0 

0 

-I 
< 
(/I 

X 

< 
ui 


ST. 


■     ■ 


■    ■    ■ 


3ELANCEY 


BROOME 


ST 
0 

a 
< 
z 
u 
a 


ST. 


CPANO 


ST 


HESTER 


■ 

■ 

I 
■  ■   ■ 


■ 
■   ■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

s 

.T. 

K) 
&■ 

z 
o 

p 
< 

a 

a. 


40.2  in  the  German,  and  39.7  in  the  Italian,  or  an  average 
of  63.5  for  the  whole  area  covered.  Without  disparaging 
in  the  least  any  efibrt  to  diminish  the  number  of  drink 
places,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  has  not  in 
this  section  worked  changes  of  measurable  value. 


390       OPEKATION   OF   NEW   YORK    LIQUOR    TAX    LAW. 


E.HOUSTON 


ST. 

■ 


STANTON 


ST. 


5    ^ 


myiNCTON 


AA 


A 


ST. 


DELANCEV 


_1|HJ 


BROOME 


■ 

■   ■ 

■ 

■ 
■ 

1 

>T. 

■ 

■  ■ 
■ 

■ 

■  ■ 

0 

a 

< 
z 
u 
a 
0 

■ 

0 

J 

0 

3 

ST 


. 

QRAND 

ST. 

■ 

> 

> 
■ 

■ 
■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

> 

■ 

■ 

> 

> 

■ 

I 

■ 
■ 

■ 
■ 

■ 

■ 

■■ 

■ 

HESTE 

.R 

5 

.T. 

♦ 

Z 

o 
o 

•< 
tf) 

X 

u 

< 


I 
m 

(/) 

Z 

o 
o 

^i 

I/I   o 
"    DC 

u 

ID 

E 
3 

z 

M 
M 


z 
0 

F 
< 

a 


RAINES    LAW    HOTELS. 

While  one  might  have  diflficulty  in  proving  that  the 
hotel  clause  was  purposely  designed  to  act  as  a  safety- 
valve  for  the  irrepressible  demand  for  Sunday  selling,  it 
did  not  require  great  penetration  to  see  that  it  would 
operate  as  such  in  cities  like  New  York.  But  since  the 
nullification  of  Sunday  prohibition  was  both  in  contraven- 


REDUCTION   OF  DRINK   PLACES. 


391 


E    HOUSTON 


CANAL  ST. 


tion  of  Republican  pledges  and  odious  to  a  large  section  of 
the  party,  some  amendments  to  the  hotel  provision  could 
not  be  avoided ;  and  those  adopted  probably  created  the 


392      OPERATION   OF  NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX  LAW. 


C  AN  AU 


ST 


impression  that  the  hotel  nuisance  would  be  minimized. 
To  those  who  had  given  the  matter  serious  thought,  it  was 
apparent  tliat  the  main  effect  of  the  new  regulations  would 


RAINES   LAW   HOTELS.  393 

be  to  increase  the  cost  of  maintaining  hotels.  It  seems 
that  if  the  aim  had  been  to  put  a  stop  to  Sunday  selling, 
regardless  of  the  sentiment  of  the  city  Republicans,  the 
legislature  would  have  resorted  to  the  easy  expedient  of 
taxing  the  pseudo  hotel  out  of  existence.  It  might  have 
been  done  without  violating  the  principle  of  the  law. 

As  amended,  the  hotel  regulations  are  less  easily  en- 
forced than  before.  It  is  supposed  that  the  police  make 
an  inspection  now  when  a  new  "  hotel  "  is  opened,  — how 
searching  an  inspection  is  not  known.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  best  informed  intimate  that  the  affair  is  not  taken  seri- 
ously, provided  the  intent  to  circumvent  the  law  is  not 
too  obvious.  Once  inspected,  the  hotels  are  left  in  peace. 
From  such  personal  inspection  as  it  has  been  possible  to 
make,  it  seems  indisputable  that  a  goodly  number  of  the 
places  in  question  are  truly  "  fake  "  hotels  in  the  sense 
that  they  do  not  meet  the  legal  requirements.  Of  the 
ramshackle,  dilapidated  place  advertising  quarters  over  the 
bar-room  at  )$1  per  week,  or  twenty  cents  a  night,  and 
board  if  desired,  it  is  not  necessary  to  speak  at  length. 
All  have  this  in  common,  that  the  hotel  business  is  not  a 
bona  fide  venture,  and  is  engaged  in  simply  because  it 
legalizes  Sunday  selling.  But  the  sleeping  apartments 
and  the  other  extra  rooms  required  involve  a  large  ex- 
penditure for  which  the  saloon-keeper  seeks  other  equiva- 
lents than  the  increased  income  from  selling  liquor  and  the 
legal  sandwich  on  Sundays.  He  may  be  fortunate  enough 
to  get  one  of  the  many  clubs  or  associations  to  make  its 
home  with  him.  And  if  all  else  fails,  there  is  always  the 
last  resort  of  turning  his  place  into  a  house  of  assignation. 
Any  attempt  to  estimate  the  number  of  hotel-keepers  who 
stoop  to  this  source  of  gain  would  be  idle.  It  may  be  said 
on  the  authority  of  the  police,  who  would  not  be  inclined 
to  exaggerate  such  a  matter,  that  they  are  very  numerous. 
This  kind  of  hotel  business  has  become  a  distinct  and  grow- 


394      OPERATION    OF    NEW   YORK    LIQUOR    TAX   LAW. 

ing  evil  since  the  inauguration  of  the  Eaines  law.  Many 
dealers  deplore  it,  of  course,  and  are  themselves  careful  to 
advertise  "  furnished  rooms  for  gentlemen  only."  Accord- 
ing to  the  most  reliable  estimate,  the  saloon-hotels,  includ- 
ing the  restaurants,  which  must  also  provide  bedrooms  in 
order  to  sell  liquor  on  Sundays  with  meals,  number  about 
2,500,  and  they  are  constantly  increasing.  The  accompany- 
ing chart  shows  how  abundantly  some  parts  of  the  city  are 
supplied  with  these  institutions.  The  section  chosen  for 
illustration  runs  along  the  western  water-front,  from  Morton 
Street  on  the  north  to  Duane  Street  on  the  south,  and  ex- 
tends three  blocks  east ;  it  is  about  three  quarters  of  a  mile 
in  length.  The  lower  half  abounds  in  wholesale  establish- 
ments and  shops,  the  upper  half  in  warehouses  and  lumber 
yards.  It  is  thus  far  from  being  a  densely  populated  tene- 
ment district.  There  are  not  above  half  a  dozen  genuine 
hotels,  and  these  suffice  to  take  care  of  the  transient  guests 
who  choose  to  stay  in  that  part  of  the  city.  The  others 
cater  principally  to  the  hundreds  of  'longshore-men,  team- 
sters, sailors,  and  dock-laborers,  and  on  Sundays  are  welcome 
lounging  places  for  residents  of  the  neighboring  tenement 
districts.  Ko  census  of  the  population  is  obtainable.  One 
may,  however,  safely  hold  that  the  number  of  inhabitants 
to  each  drink  place  is  not  above  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five.  Probably  a  majority  of  the  residents  are  Irish,  or  of 
Irish  parentage.  Elsewhere  saloon-hotels  are  particularly 
numerous  along  the  great  avenues  on  the  east  and  west 
sides,  but  perhaps  nowhere  more  abundant  than  in  the 
section  shown. 

DRINKING    CLUBS. 

The  general  tax  of  $800  on  clubs  accomplished  in  large 
part  a  desirable  end.  Hundreds  of  associations,  chartered 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the 
new  law,  disbanded  for  purely  financial  reasons :  they  could 


DRINKING   CLUBS. 


395 


CD 


MowTON  St. 

cs - 


> 

r 
o 

0 

2 

(« 

<0 


Leroy  St. 

IV 


Clarkson  £t. 


^ 


W.Houston  St. 


DesBROsses  St. 

<1 


Vestry  St. 


3.t 


Laicht    St. 


SHulert  9  St. 

"' '"c — isr 

"Pa 

zLA_Jc«L 


OBeacm  i  St 

o|  Is' 

X 


N... Moore  .  St. 


i't 


FRANKLIN  St. 


r 


J^cn 


bi 


^ 


Hawhison  St. .  


JAY   St. 


E  n.a.n»n 


DUANK      St 


O.     > 


3ESBROSSES  St 


neither  afford  to  pay  nor  could  they  escape  the  tax.  The 
amendment  denying  to  clubs  organized  or  incorporated 
after  March,  1896,  the  privilege  of  selling  during  the 
otherwise  prohibited  liours,  could  easily  have  been  cir- 
cumvented by  the  purchase  of  old  charters,  but  it  became 
necessary  to  have  a  tax  certificate.  All  the  remaining 
drinking  clubs,  estimated  at  about  two  hundred,  are  pro- 
tected by  charters  granted  at  some  time  to  now  defunct 
organizations.  Tlie  traffic  in  old  charters  has  proved  quite 
profitable.  Plenty  of  them  are  in  the  market  at  prices 
ranging  from  $75  to  $200,  or  whatever  sum  can   be  ob- 


396   OPERATION  OF  NEW  YOEK  LIQUOR  TAX  LAW. 

tained.      A  charter   once   held    by   " Sick-Benevolent 

Fraternity  "  gives  legal  protection,  it  seems,  to  a  drinking 
club,  at  least  up  to  the  present  time. 

Within  a  short  time  some  of  the  most  notorious  clubs, 
which  were  nothing  more  nor  less  than  resorts  for  prosti- 
tutes and  their  companions,  have  been  broken  up  and  their 
certificates  revoked,  but  not  until  they  had  become  public 
nuisances.  The  vilest  of  them  all  remains  unmolested, 
owing  to  some  mysterious  "  pull  "  with  the  authorities. 
Perhaps  a  majority  of  these  clubs  make  their  home  in 
rooms  above  saloons,  and  have  no  other  purpose  than  that 
of  supplying  the  members  and  those  whom  they  may  "  in- 
troduce "  (i.  e.  persons  willing  to  pay  an  initiation  fee  of 
ten  to  twenty-five  cents)  with  liquor  after  1  A.  M.  and 
on  Sundays.  The  saloon-keeper  then  acts  as  steward  and 
general  manager  of  the  club.  As  a  rule,  the  club  pays  for 
its  own  certificate,  few  dealers  caring  to  take  the  risk  of 
running  both  a  club  and  a  saloon  on  the  same  certificate. 
So  long  as  a  drinking  club  can  parade  some  kind  of  a 
charter,  pays  the  tax, 'and  prevents  violent  disorders  and 
the  free  entrance  of  women  of  the  streets,  it  is  secure  from 
interference.  One  club  is  reported  to  have  a  membership 
of  about  3,000.  All  seem  to  flourish,  although,  with  few 
exceptions,  they  are  rarely  in  full  blast  while  the  ordinary 
saloon  remains  open. 

ARRESTS    FOR    EXCISE    VIOLATIONS    AND    DRUNKENNESS. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  the  present  law  has  been  and 
continues  to  be  enforced  with  greater  rigor  in  New  York 
than  in  any  other  large  city  in  the  State.  Police  efforts 
are  mainly  directed  against  Sunday  selling  by  dealers  who 
are  not  fortunate  enough  to  be  hotel  proprietors.  A  num- 
ber of  excise  arrests  is  reported  every  Monday,  but  not  so 
many  as  there  might  be.  If  the  saloon-keeper  has  the 
necessary  kind  of   "  influence,"    he  may  go  on  selling  in 


ENFORCEMENT.  397 

peace  at  all  hours,  on  every  day  and  night  of  the  week, 
although  a  near-by  competitor  is  arrested  without  ceremony 
for  doing  the  same  thing.  On  the  wliole,  the  present  en- 
forcement is  signally  lacking  in  uniformity  of  purpose. 
One  cannot  wonder  at  the  prevalence  of  a  feeling  among 
a  certain  class  of  dealers  that  at  least  a  partial  return  to 
old  conditions  is  not  very  far  off.  It  is  expected  that  the 
protection  now  enjoyed  by  some  will  be  extended  to  others 
for  a  consideration. 

To  show  the  utter  lack  of  comparative  data  on  which  to 
base  any  conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  the  present  law  on 
the  arrests  for  drunkenness,  it  seems  enough  to  mention 
that  the  arrests  for  intoxication  fell  from  26,002  in  1891 
to  19,729  in  1894,  followed  the  next  year  by  an  increase 
to  22,497,  as  the  result  of  special  efforts  to  clear  the  streets 
of  drunken  persons.  The  whole  matter  of  arrests  for  this 
offense  is  so  much  a  question  of  police  caprice  that  one  can 
find  statistics  to  prove  almost  any  theory. 

DISPOSITION    OF    EXCISE    CASES. 

When  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions,  then  just  organized, 
took  up  excise  violations  in  July,  1895,  many  old  cases 
awaited  trial,  and  the  weekly  arrests  furnishing  new  ones 
assumed  proportions  hitherto  unknown.  The  Avork  of  the 
court,  unexampled  both  for  aggressiveness  and  results,  was 
abrogated  when  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  took  effect  in  1896, 
since  it  provided  that  all  proceedings  should  be  by  in- 
dictment and  trial  by  a  court  of  record.  By  the  law  as 
amended  in  1897,  jurisdiction  in  excise  cases  is  again  given 
the  Court  of  Special  Sessions,  unless  it  appear  during  the 
preliminary  examination  by  magistrates  tliat  a  crime  not 
triable  by  this  court,  which  sits  without  a  jury,  has  been 
committed.  Some  cases  are,  therefore,  sent  direct  to  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions. 


398       OPERATION    OF    NEW   YORK    LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

DISPOSITION    OF    EXCISE    CASES    IN    THE    COURT 
OF  SPECIAL  SESSIONS  JULY  1  TO  DECEMBER  31. 

1895  1896  1897 

Convictions 1,280  254  11 

Acquittals 163  162  50 

Dismissed 21  43  28 

Discharged  on  own  recognizance      .  37  4 

Demurrers  allowed 3  35 

Transferred  to  General  Sessions  .     .  698  319  775 

Fines  collected $38,205  $6,775  $125 

The  Court  of  Special  Sessions,  although  somewhat  handi- 
capped by  the  penalties  now  provided,  deals  as  thoroughly 
with  excise  offenses  as  ever,  but  comparatively  few  cases 
come  before  it.  Defendants  have  learned  that  their  chances 
of  escaping  punishment  are  much  improved  by  securing  a 
transfer  to  General  Sessions.  Here  the  process  of  indict- 
ment and  trial  by  jury  must  be  gone  through,  and  the  prob- 
ability is  that  the  case  will  never  again  be  heard  of.  It  is 
estimated  that  not  over  five  per  cent,  of  the  cases  transferred 
in  1897  have  been  tried,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  never  will  be. 

BROOKLYN. 

Both  under  the  old  and  the  new  laws,  the  conditions  of 
the  liquor  traffic  in  Brooklyn  have  been  so  similar  to  those 
observed  in  New  York  that,  in  order  to  avoid  tedious  repe- 
titions, they  may  be  discussed  in  a  few  words.  Although 
not  blessed  with  excise  boards  more  faithful  and  competent 
than  its  larger  neighbor,  Brooklyn  has  never  supported  a 
like  proportion  of  saloons.  The  reasons  for  this  are  its 
comparative  poverty,  the  fact  that  a  large  part  of  its  popu- 
lation bring  trade  to  the  New  York  saloons  during  the  day, 
and  that  the  transient  traffic  is  small.  While  the  tax  on 
drink  places  is  at  present  $150  less  than  across  the  bridge, 
a  slightly  larger  reduction  in  proportion   to  the  population 


BROOKLYN.  899 

has  resulted ;  there  has  been  a  gain  of  thirty-four  inhabit- 
ants for  each  place  holding  a  certificate  over  the  places 
licensed  in  1895-9G,  against  twenty-five  in  New  York. 
Yet  the  proportion  of  saloon,  club,  and  hotel  certificates  to 
1,000  inhabitants  is  the  same  in  both,  namely,  3.6.  The 
explanation  offered  is  that  fewer  bottle  shops  found  it  profit- 
able to  continue  business.  The  reduction  is  to  be  sought 
among  these  and  the  small  beer-shops  in  the  German  dis- 
tricts. 

Few  drinking  clubs  are  left  since  the  law  was  amended ; 
but  the  saloon-hotels  remain  prominent  institutions,  and 
present  the  general  characteristics  already  described.  A 
Brooklyn  brewer  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  one 
third  of  his  customers  have  taken  to  letting  rooms  for  im- 
moral purposes.  The  extent  to  which  saloon-hotels  give 
shelter  to  the  social  evil  is  freely  commented  upon  by  citi- 
zens not  otherwise  particularly  observant. 

Enforcement  of  the  hotel  regulations  seems  feebler  than 
in  New  York.  It  sounds  exaggerated  to  say  that  all  a 
dealer  has  to  do  is  to  put  a  sign  reading,  "  Hotel  now  open" 
in  his  window,  to  sell  undisturbed  on  Sundays,  but  in- 
stances are  known  of  this  happening.  Since  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  two  cities  the  police  are  displaying  more  activ- 
ity on  Sunday.  Up  to  September  30,  1897,  the  State 
treasury  had  been  enriched  to  the  amount  of  $10  from  fines 
imposed  for  violations  in  Kings  County.  It  is  not  expected 
that  the  higher  tax,  which  will  go  into  effect  on  the  expira- 
tion of  the  present  certificate,  will  further  diminish  the 
number  of  saloons ;  but  this  result  is  looked  for  in  other 
places  now  a  part  of  Greater  New  York.  Notable  among 
them  is  Long  Island  City,  where  under  a  tax  of  $350  the 
ratio  of  inhabitants  to  each  certificate  is  103,  and  where 
police  regulations  are  still  laughed  at  by  many  dealers. 


400      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 
ALBANY    AND    NEIGHBORING    CITIES. 

The  cluster  of  cities  at  the  head  of  navigation  of  the 
Hxidson  aptly  ilhistrates  the  fact  that  an  adjustment  of  the 
liquor  tax  rate  on  the  scale  adopted  in  the  present  law 
affects  closely  related  municipalities  simply  according  to 
their  size,  and  therefore  in  an  unequal  and  unjustifiable 
manner.  In  other  Avords,  of  two  practically  adjoining 
cities,  with  different  tax  rates,  the  smaller  is  almost  sure  to 
retain  the  larger  proportion  of  saloons ;  or,  if  the  tax  rate 
be  the  same,  the  benefit  from  a  reduction  of  saloons  is  in 
inverse  order.  For  the  sake  of  convenience,  use  is  made 
of  statistics  contained  in  the  Second  Annual  Report  of 
the  Commissioner  of  Excise,  which  give  the  proportion  of 
saloons  to  each  1,000  inhabitants,  and  are  computed  on  the 
basis  of  places  holding  tax  certificates  of  the  first  grade 
(saloons,  hotels,  and  clubs)  on  September  30,  1897. 

Albany,  population  (census  1892),  97,120,  has  4.4  drink 
places  to  each  1,000  inhabitants.  On  the  opposite  bank  of 
the  Hudson,  and  quickly  reached  from  Albany  by  electric 
cars,  lies  the  recently  incorporated  city  Rensselaer,  popula- 
tion 8,000.  It  is  practically  a  suburb  of  Albany,  the  home 
of  less  well-to-do  people,  and  not  a  business  centre ;  yet 
the  proportion  of  drink  places  —  and  there  are  hardly  any 
bona  fide  hotels  and  no  clubs — is  5  to  each  1,000  people. 
Why  ?  Because  the  tax  here  is  but  $300  as  against  $500 
in  Albany.  Some  dealers  who  could  not  afford  to  continue 
business  in  the  latter  —  at  least  could  not  open  hotels  — 
found  a  home  across  the  river. 

A  few  miles  to  the  north,  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the 
Hudson,  is  Troy.  Although  its  population  is  smaller  than 
that  of  Albany  by  about  32,000,  the  liquor  tax  rate  is  the 
same.  In  consequence,  the  proportion  of  drink  places  is 
smaller,  being  only  3.8  as  against  4.4  in  Albany.  But 
under  the  old  law  Troy  had  relatively  more  saloons  than 
its  larger  neighbor. 


ALBANY    AND   NEIGHBORING   CITIES.  401 

Nearly  opposite  Troy,  but  in  Albany  County,  are  the 
two  cities  Cohoes  and  Watervliet,  populations  23,234  and 
14,000  respectively.  In  both,  the  ratio  of  drink  places  to 
1,000  inhabitants  is  the  same,  namely,  4.8,  or  one  more  than 
in  Troy,  foj  the  tax  rate  is  $150  less  and  rents  are  lower. 
It  must  not  be  understood  that  the  saloons  have  decreased 
in  Troy,  and  increased  in  the  smaller  adjacent  places.  A 
distinct  diminution  has  taken  place  in  the  latter  as  well. 
The  point  is,  that  whatever  benefit  accrues  from  such  dimi- 
nution is  unequally  shared,  and  that  the  law  operates  less 
advantageously  in  the  small  cities.  One  fails  to  see  why 
a  tax  of  $500  should  not  produce  even  better  results  in 
Cohoes  than  in  Troy,  provided  it  be  the  aim  to  reduce  the 
number  of  saloons.  It  is  also  evident  that  under  the  pre- 
sent law  Watervliet  would  have  fared  better  than  it  has, 
but  for  the  proximity  of  Troy  with  its  higher  tax  rate. 

Another  effect  of  the  law  in  this  part  of  the  State  is  to 
make  saloons  move  across  city  limits,  or  to  near-by  villages, 
where  a  smaller  and  almost  nominal  tax  may  be  enjoyed. 

There  is  no  tangible  evidence  that  the  reduction  of  drink 
places  in  the  cities  mentioned  has  caused  greater  sobriety ; 
for,  after  all,  the  changes  have  not  been  sweeping.  Com- 
pared with  the  last  year  of  the  old  law,  the  number  of 
inhabitants  to  each  place  holding  a  license  or  certificate  has 
risen  in  Albany  from  130  to  173;  in  Troy  from  117  to 
157;  in  Cohoes  from  111  to  155;  and  in  Watervliet  from 
76  to  147.  These  figures  seem  to  contradict  the  statement 
made  above  concerning  the  unequal  operation  of  the  tax 
rates ;  since  the  increase  in  population  to  each  certificate 
issued  is  relatively  greater  in  the  two  small  cities.  Never- 
theless, the  proportion  of  drink  places  remains  as  given  ; 
one  cannot  go  behind  the  official  returns.  The  increase  in 
inhabitants  to  each  certificate  is  explained  by  the  disappear- 
ance of  a  multitude  of  bottle  shops  that  ceased  to  be  profit- 
able imder  the  new  law. 


402       OPERATION    OF    NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

The  gain  represented  by  the  diminution  in  licensed 
places  is  probably  fully  offset  by  the  appearance  of  the 
saloon-hotel.  Police  estimates  give  Albany  about  100  of 
them ;  and  Troy  and  the  other  three  cities  have  their  quota 
in  similar  proportion.  Police  officials  state  in  most  positive 
terms  that  a  majority  of  these  hotels  have  become  abodes  of 
other  vices  than  that  of  drunkenness  alone,  and  are  practi- 
cally beyond  their  control.  No  inspection  is  made  either 
before  or  after  the  certificate  has  been  obtained ;  conse- 
quently no  one  knows  just  how  many  there  are,  and  to 
what  extent  hotel  regulations  are  observed. 

"It  is  putting  it  mildly  to  say  that  the  law  is  indiffer- 
ently enforced,"  remarked  a  high  official  of  the  Excise 
Department,  speaking  of  the  cities  under  consideration. 
During  the  last  excise  year,  not  one  cent  in  fines  was  paid 
into  the  state  treasury  from  Pensselaer  County,  and  only 
$100  from  Albany  County.  This  is,  however,  not  equiva- 
lent to  saying  that  the  police  shirked  their  duties.  Espe- 
cially in  Albany,  the  Sunday  law  was  fairly  well  observed 
by  the  ordinary  saloons.  So  far  there  is  a  decided  improve- 
ment over  former  years,  thanks  to  some  sensible  provisions 
in  the  law.  But  the  dealers  fear  the  discomforts  and  noto- 
riety of  being  arrested  rather  than  conviction  for  violations. 
Public  officials  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  at  the  outset  that 
they  would  not  help  to  make  the  law  effective.  Apparently 
they  keep  their  word ;  for  cases  backed  by  the  strongest 
evidence  continue  to  be  thrown  out  of  court.  Many  such 
could  be  cited ;  it  is  enough,  however,  to  refer  to  the  fact 
that  no  fines  worth  mentioning  are  collected.  Politics 
enters  largely  into  the  question  of  enforcement,  and  even 
more  so  the  feeling,  shared  by  many  who  cannot  be  accused 
of  enmity  toward  the  law,  that  the  penalties  provided  are 
too  severe. 


CITIES   IN   CENTRAL    NEW   YORK.  403 

ROCHESTER    AND    SYRACUSE. 

Events  in  Rochester  have  in  a  measure  refuted  the  con- 
tention that  the  new  law  would  take  the  liquor  question 
out  of  politics.  The  overthrow  of  the  Republican  majority 
in  the  city  and  county,  the  "  Republican  banner-county  in 
the  State  "  at  the  last  election,  is  attributed  directly  to  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  Raines  law.  This  year  a  state  elec- 
tion is  pending,  and  for  fear  of  rousing  further  animosity 
to  the  law,  so  it  is  alleged,  eflforts  at  enforcement  are  abat- 
ing in  vigor  and  the  side  doors  are  again  open  on  Sundays. 
This  is  the  test ;  for  throughout  the  State  enforcement  has 
become  synonymous  with  Sunday  closing.  So  far  as  known, 
only  one  conviction  has  been  secured  for  violations,  and 
that  is  said  to  have  been  the  result  of  "  spite  "  against  the 
offender.  From  the  whole  county  $525  have  been  collected 
in  fines. 

Syracuse  is  another  of  the  cities  that  have  registered  a 
political  protest  against  the  present  liquor  law.  Yet  it 
belongs  to  the  group  of  municipalities  most  beneficially 
affected,  so  far  as  a  reduction  of  licensed  places  goes ;  for 
here  the  proportional  increase  in  inhabitants  to  each  license 
has  been  greater  than  in  any  other  city  in  the  State,  being 
nearly  fifty.  Had  the  dissatisfaction  expressed  been  directed 
against  the  growth  in  saloon-hotels,  instead  of  against  the 
tax  features  and  the  abolition  of  home  rule  (that  is,  a  "  wide- 
open  "  condition),  it  would  have  been  more  intelligible. 
For,  if  the  words  of  the  chief  of  police  are  to  be  trusted, 
the  saloon-hotels  in  Syracuse  are  little  better  than  brothels. 
There  are  many  of  them.  Witli  regard  to  enforcement,  it 
is  enough  to  say  that  so  far  no  fines  have  been  collected  in 
the  city  for  the  whole  county  of  Onondaga. 

In  all  the  places  visited,  the  county  treasurers  appear  to 
issue  certificates  and  collect  taxes  in  harmony  with  the  pol- 
icy insisted  upon  by  the  Department  of  Excise. 


404      OPERATION   OF  NEW   YOKK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

BUFFALO. 

With  seventy-two  inhabitants  to  each  license  place  in 
1887,  Buffalo  stood  preeminent  among  the  cities  of  the 
State  as  a  saloon  centre.  Under  the  later  administration 
of  excise  affairs  by  a  board  of  police  and  excise  commission- 
ers a  slight  gain  was  made,  so  that  nine  years  later  Buffalo 
had  been  reduced  to  the  sixth  place  and  added  forty-three 
inhabitants  to  each  license.  This  board  was  distinguished 
from  those  of  other  cities  by  being  of  bi-partisan  character, 
and  having  control  also  of  the  police.  When  dealing  with 
the  police,  the  mayor  sat  as  an  ex-officio  member  of  the 
board,  but  not  when  it  passed  on  excise  matters.  Thus  it 
was  sought  to  shut  out  politics,  and  with  some  success.  On 
the  whole,  the  board  seems  to  have  exercised  its  discretion- 
ary powers  for  the  exclusion  of  objectionable  characters 
from  the  trade.  Under  the  small  license  fee  of  $125,  how- 
ever, the  number  of  saloons  remained  near  high- water  mark. 
Except  for  a  short  time  when  the  back-wash  from  the  great 
reform  wave  which  had  swept  over  New  York  touched 
Buffalo,  the  Sunday  laws  were  ignored,  that  is,  the  side 
doors  were  open. 

One  is  forced  to  infer  that  in  fixing  the  present  tax  rate 
the  fathers  of  the  law  did  not  contemplate  a  wholesale 
reduction  of  drink  places  in  Buffalo.  A  certificate  of  the 
first  grade  now  costs  $500,  which,  in  spite  of  a  population 
four  and  a  half  times  as  large,  is  the  rate  obtaining  in  Troy. 
Why  Buffalo,  although  a  city  of  the  first  class  (Art.  XII. 
sec.  11,  Constitution  of  State  of  New  York),  has  been  so 
singularly  favored  in  the  matter  of  liquor  taxes,  when  com- 
pared with  other  cities  both  above  and  below  it  in  point  of 
population,  is  not  clear,  but  the  result  is  clear :  Buffalo  has 
now  more  drink  places  (saloons,  hotels,  and  clubs)  than 
any  other  city  in  the  State  excepting  three.  One  of  these 
three  is  its  near  neighbor,  Niagara  Falls ;  the  other  two  are 


BUFFALO.  405 

Long  Island  City  and  Mount  Vernon,  both  of  which  gained 
some  of  the  liquor  dealers  lost  to  Brooklyn  and  New  York. 
The  effect  of  the  new  law  on  the  number  of  licensed 
places  will  be  seen  from  this  comparative  statement :  — 

Licenses  issued  in  1895-9G  to  Certificates  issued  in  1896-97  to 

Hotels 34  Hotels,  saloons!,  and  clubs     .     1,751 

Saloons 2,248     Storekeepers,  etc 110 

Storekeepers  and  druggists    .       136     Druggists 24 


Total 2,418  Total 1,885 

On  the  basis  of  the  population  in  1892,  the  number  of 
inhabitants  to  each  license  is  now  147  as  against  115  to 
each  license  in  1895-96. 

Certificates  are  issued  by  a  deputy  commissioner,  who  dis- 
charges this  function  in  the  same  manner  as  his  colleagues. 
He  is  an  active  politician.  While  censure  of  his  work 
is  not  wanting,  evidence  of  shortcomings  is  wanting.  A 
branch  of  the  Fidelity  Surety  and  Deposit  Company  of 
Maryland  assumes  responsibility  for  liquor  bonds.  Even 
less  is  done  than  in  New  York  city  to  keep  the  saloon- 
hotels  within  bounds.  There  are  about  400  of  them  at 
present,  according  to  police  estimates ;  no  record  exists 
showing  the  exact  number.  Neither  before  nor  after  a 
"  hotel  "  opens,  is  an  inspection  made  of  the  premises.  For 
the  force  at  the  disposal  of  the  deputy  commissioner  to 
make  effective  inspections  is  out  of  the  question.  It  is  not 
even  incumbent  upon  him  to  notify  the  police  when  a  cer- 
tificate is  issued  to  a  saloon-hotel  keeper.  For  a  short  time 
the  police  sought  to  supervise  such  institutions,  but  they 
do  so  no  longer.  There  is  no  statute  or  ordinance  requir- 
ing them  to  make  inspections.  The  force  is  not  adequate 
for  this  purpose,  and  '•'  in  order  to  keep  the  hotels  under 
proper  surveillance,  it  would  be  necessary  to  station  a  man 
in  each."  They  are,  therefore,  practically  beyond  the  con- 
trol of  the  police,  whose  much  respected  chief  characterized 


406      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

the  ordinary  saloon  as  "  bad  enough,  but  not  a  tenth  part 
as  bad  as  the  hotel."  In  plain  words,  these  hotels  are 
largely  houses  of  assignation  and  other  vices.  They  are 
not  all  bad,  however.  All  grades  are  found,  from  the  law- 
obeying  German  hotel  to  the  vile  dive  selling  mixed  ale  at 
three  cents  a  glass,  where  neither  pocket-book  nor  life  is 
safe.  All  hotels  are  wide  open  on  Sundays,  and  so,  for 
that  matter,  are  not  a  few  saloons.  Dealers  report  that  they 
are  less  "  troubled  "  by  the  police  than  formerly.  Orders 
to  enforce  the  Sunday  regulations  are  as  stringent  as  ever. 
But  one  can  well  understand  a  growing  disposition  among 
the  rank  and  file  of  officers  to  wink  at  violations,  so  long  as 
convictions  do  not  follow  arrests,  and  grand  juries  are  loath 
to  accept  anything  but  the  most  compelling  evidence.  Just 
$485  have  been  collected  in  fines  for  excise  offenses  from 
Erie  County  in  twelve  months,  and  it  should  be  remembered 
that  the  fine  for  some  violations  must  at  least  equal  the 
amount  of  tax  for  one  year.  Of  the  "  fake  "  clubs  little 
was  learned  except  that  a  number  exists. 


OPERATION  OF  THE   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW  IN 

GENERAL. 


EFFECT    UPON    THE    NUMBER    OF    LIQUOR    SHOPS. 

From  a  temperance  point  of  view,  interest  in  the  work- 
ings of  the  law  centres  about  its  effectiveness  as  a  means  of 
reducing  the  number  of  places  where  drink  is  sold.  One 
cannot  very  well  enter  a  plea  for  it  as  a  temperance  mea- 
sure on  any  other  ground.  In  saying  this,  the  usefulness 
of  some  of  the  general  restrictions  placed  upon  the  traffic  is 
not  overlooked,  but  their  value  depends  entirely  upon  the 
extent  to  which  they  are  enforced,  and  they  do  not  differ 
essentially  from  those  contained  in  the  old  law.  Moreover, 
granting  that  in  some  respects  the  liquor  business  is  under 


LICENSES   AND   CERTIFICATES.  407 

better  supervision  than  before,  the  gain  seems  fully  counter- 
balanced by  the  absence  of  discretionary  power  in  issuing 
certificates  and  the  unrestrained  abuse  of  the  hotel  privi- 
leges. The  changes  wrought  by  the  law  with  regard  to  the 
number  of  liquor-selling  places  and  the  proportion  of  inhab- 
itants to  each  one  are  shown  in  two  tables,  the  first  embra- 
cing the  cities,  the  second  the  counties  exclusive  of  cities.-^ 


Inhab- 

Inhab- 

itants 

Licenses 

Certificates 

itants 

to  each 

Tax 

granted, 

issued, 

to  each 

Certifi- 

Rate. 

1895-96. 

1896-97. 

License. 

cate. 

Cities. 

New  York  |800         8,906         7,927  202  227 

Brooklyn  650         4,702         4,025  203  237 


Buffalo 

500 

2,418 

1,885 

115 

147 

Rochester 

<( 

669 

596 

216 

243 

Albany 

(( 

744 

559 

130 

173 

Syracuse 

« 

706 

515 

130 

178 

Troy 

« 

555 

413 

117 

157 

Utica 

350 

455 

322 

102 

144 

Long  Island  City 

(( 

357 

344 

100 

103 

Binghamton 

(( 

167 

153 

206 

225 

1  The  comparative  statement  made  in  the  tables  is  based  on  the  number 
of  licenses  of  all  classes  granted  in  1895-96,  and  the  number  of  certificates 
of  all  grades  issued  from  May  1,  1896,  to  April  30,  1897.  The  total  of  the 
latter  is  smaller  than  the  whole  number  of  certificates  issued  during  the 
fiscal  3'ear  ending  September  30,  1897,  for  the  reason,  perhaps,  that  all 
clubs  are  now  required  to  pay  a  tax,  but  the  earlier  year  is  considered  by 
the  Excise  Department  to  furnish  the  fairest  basis  for  comparison.  Since 
certificates  may  be  had  for  less  than  a  whole  year,  and  can  be  surrendered 
at  any  time  without  loss  to  the  holder,  many  are  surrendered,  and  the 
total  number  of  certificates  issued  during  the  year  is,  therefore,  greater 
than  the  number  in  force  at  any  particular  date.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  numerous  certificates  are  intended  for  use  only 
during  the  summer  season  at  country  and  seaside  resorts  ;  and  that  else- 
where certificates  are  frequently  surrendered  only  for  a  short  time,  —  for 
instance,  when  a  brewer  has  made  up  his  mind  that  a  new  man  must  be 
placed  in  charge  of  his  saloon.  It  was  true  of  the  licenses  as  well  that  by 
no  means  all  were  made  use  of  during  their  entire  term,  although  no 
rebates  were  paid.  For  these  reasons  no  account  is  taken  in  the  tables  of 
the  number  of  certificates  surrendered. 


408      OPEBATION    OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX  LAW. 


Inhabi- 

Inhabi- 

tants 

Licenses 

Certificates 

tants 

to  each 

Tax 

granted, 

issued, 

to  each 

Certifi- 

Cities. 

Rate. 

1895-96. 

1896-97. 

License. 

cate. 

Yonkers 

$350 

208 

214 

151 

146 

Elmira 

(( 

273 

203 

109 

147 

Auburn 

a 

153 

119 

161 

207 

Newburgh 

a 

168 

154 

146 

159 

Cohoes 

a 

209 

149 

111 

155 

Poughkeepsie 

(4 

158 

136 

146 

170 

Schenectady 

il 

160 

148 

142 

154 

Oswego 

n 

152 

104 

144 

211 

Kingston 

ii 

183 

141 

117 

152 

Jamestown 

n 

56 

63 

332 

295 

Amsterdam 

11 

116 

120 

159 

154 

"VVatertown 

(( 

61 

69 

278 

246 

Lockport 

n 

105 

104 

153 

154 

Niagara  Falls 

ii 

150 

129 

105 

122 

Mt.  Vernon 

a 

72 

88 

215 

176 

Watervliet 

ii 

183 

95 

76 

147 

Gloversville 

« 

54 

68 

272 

216 

Rome 

<( 

106 

57 

128 

239 

Ithaca 

(( 

54 

65 

249 

207 

Ogdensburg 

a 

51 

47 

234 

254 

Hornellsville 

(i 

86 

61 

138 

195 

Middletown 

<( 

77 

67 

150 

173 

Dunkirk 

u 

73 

62 

137 

161 

Corning 

« 

67 

43 

149 

233 

Little  Falls 

300 

69 

52 

142 

189 

Hudson 

(( 

111 

86 

86 

112 

Johnstown 

(( 

34 

37 

275 

252 

Oleau 

(( 

69 

61 

132 

149 

Three  cities,  Geneva,  North  Tonawanda,  and  Hensselaer, 
were  not  incorporated  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  present 
law,  and  are  hence  necessarily  excluded  from  this  table,  but 
appear  in  the  next  with  the  villages. 

Averaging  the  number  of  inhabitants  to  each  license  and 
to  each  certificate  for  the  cities  classed  according  to  the 
amount  of  first  grade  taxes,  we  obtain  these  results :  — 


LICENSES   AND   CERTIFICATES.  409 

Average  No.  of  Inhabitants  Increase  in  Average 

to  each  No.  of  Inliabitants 

Tax.  Cities.  License.  Certificate.        to  each  Certificate. 

$800  1  202.30  227.29  24.99 

650  1  203.56  237.80  34.24 

500  5  141.92  180.10  38.18 

350  27  163.79  183.59  19.80 

300  4  159.13  175.77  16.64 

Our  averages  illustrate  forcibly  tlie  unequal  operation  of 
the  present  system  of  grading  the  liquor  taxes.  In  other 
words,  the  benefit  to  a  city  from  a  reduction  of  drink  places 
is,  on  the  whole,  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  tax  paid  : 
the  smaller  the  tax,  the  less  the  benefit ;  consequently  the 
cities  paying  the  smallest  tax  retain  the  largest  proportion 
of  saloons.  The  five  cities  having  a  first  grade  tax  of  $500 
seem  to  form  an  exception,  but  here,  for  obvious  reasons, 
the  smaller,  Syracuse,  Albany,  and  Troy,  fare  better  than 
Buffalo  and  Eochester.  The  point  emphasized  will  perhaps 
be  better  perceived  by  showing  the  proportion  of  first  grade 
certificates  (covering  saloons,  clubs,  and  hotels),  to  1,000 
inhabitants,  in  force  September  30,  1897,  for  the  cities 
classed  according  to  the  rate  of  tax,  as  given  in  the  Second 
Annual  Report  of  the  State  Commissioner  of  Excise,  pp. 
105,106:  — 

Drink  Places  per 
1,000  Inliabitants. 

New  York  city,  Tax,  $800 3.6 

Brooklyn,               "  650 3.6 

Average  for  cities  paying  500 4.3 

"        "      "         "  350 4.5 

1   "        "      "          "  300 4.8 

Highest  average  (Long  Island  City) 8.1 

Lowest        "        (Jamestown) 2.6 

It  deserves  attention  that  in  the  last  mentioned  city,  as 
well  as  in  seven  others,  all  of  which  pay  a  low  tax,  the 
number  of  inhabitants  to  each  place  authorized  to  sell  liquor 
1  Includes  the  three  cities  not  given  in  our  table. 


410      OPERATION   OF  NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

has  fallen  off  under  the  present  law.  For  the  thirty-eight 
cities  the  average  number  of  inhabitants  to  each  license  is 
162.48,  and  to  each  certificate  184.95,  an  average  gain  of 
22.47  in  favor  of  the  present  law. 

Outside  the  cities  there  are  paid  for  tax  certificates  of 
the  first  grade  $350  by  4  villages,  $300  by  21,  $200  by 
161,  and  $100  by  222.  The  last-named  sum  is  the  lowest 
tax  allowed  by  law,  and  is  therefore  the  one  prevailing  in 
the  strictly  rural  districts.  The  next  table  is  a  comparative 
statement  of  licenses  and  certificates  by  counties  exclusive 
of  cities,  hence  exclusive  of  New  York  and  Kings  counties. 
An  asterisk  denotes  that  the  county  contains  one  or  more 
cities :  — 


Number  of 

Number  of 

Number  of 

Number  of 

Licenses 

Certificates 

Licenses 

Certificates 

granted, 

issued, 

granted, 

issued. 

Counties. 

1895-96. 

1896-97. 

Counties. 

1895-96. 

1896-97. 

*Albany 

82 

154 

Livingston 

Ill 

138 

Allegany 

65 

82 

Madison 

174 

158 

*Broome 

41 

61 

*Monroe 

207 

210 

*Cattaraugiis      130 

169 

*Montgomery     140 

149 

*Cayuga 

62 

69 

*Niagara 

160 

134 

*Chautauqu 

a       74 

101 

*Oneida 

228 

215 

*Chemung 

48 

48 

*Onondaga 

256 

286 

Chenango 

92 

104 

*Ontario 

146 

140 

Clinton 

138 

136 

*Orange 

288 

280 

*Columbia 

125 

136 

Orleans 

75 

67 

Cortland 

42 

72 

*Oswego 

130 

116 

Delaware 

95 

97 

Otsego 

160 

144 

*Dutchess 

246 

269 

Putnam 

61 

49 

*Erie 

533 

472 

*Queens 

1,285 

1,302 

Essex 

96 

110 

*Rensselaer 

353 

277 

Franklin 

99 

105 

Richmond 

543 

505 

*Fulton 

53 

57 

Rockland 

236 

217 

Genesee 

86 

86 

*St.  Lawrence    142 

162 

Greene 

173 

181 

Saratoga 

401 

321 

Hamilton 

46 

33 

*Schenectady       45 

51 

*IIerkimer 

183 

181 

Schoharie 

74 

81 

*Jefferson 

168 

173 

Schuyler 

48 

46 

Lewis 

111 

120 

Seneca 

118 

109 

LICENSES   AND   CERTIFICATES. 


411 


Counties. 

Number  of 
Licenses 
granted, 
1895-96. 

Number  of 

Certificates 

issued, 

1896-97. 

Counties. 

Number  of 
Licenses 
granted, 
1895-96. 

Number  of 
Certilicatea 

issued, 
1896-97. 

*Steuben 

131 

158 

Washington 

173 

216 

Suffolk 

243 

324 

Wayne 

128 

132 

Tioga 

95 

95 

*Westchestei 

•     602 

675 

*Tompkins 

*Ulster 

34 

310 

44 

297 

Wyoming 
Yates 

92 
41 

89 
48 

Warren 

152 

146 

In-  thirty -two  out  of  the  fifty- five  counties  considered, 
there  has  been  an  increase  of  certificates  over  licenses  ;  in 
eighteen  a  decrease ;  and  in  four  no  change.  For  all  the 
counties  we  find  243  inhabitants  to  each  license  and  238  to 
each  certificate  (census  of  1892),  —  a  loss  of  five  inhabitants 
under  the  present  law.  Bringing  the  totals  into  compari- 
son, the  following  exhibit  is  obtained  :  — 


Number  of 

Licenses, 

1895-96. 

In  counties  outside  cities  .     10,320 
In  cities 22,937 


Number  of 

Certificates,     Inhabitants  to  each 
1896-97.        License.     Certificate. 


10,547 
19,481 


240 
175 


For  the  whole  State 


33,257      30,028        195 


235 
206 

216 


With  an  average  gain  of  twenty-two  inhabitants  in  cities 
for  each  place  where  liquor  is  sold,  and  a  loss  of  five  inhabit- 
ants for  each  such  place  outside  the  cities,  it  does  not  seem 
demonstrable  that  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  has  become  a  potent 
temperance  factor.  Most  striking  is  the  discrimination  in 
favor  of  the  rural  liquor  traffic.  It  may  be  objected  that 
our  comparisons  are  not  quite  just,  because  the  unlicensed 
selling,  which  certainly  flourished  to  a  greater  extent  under 
the  excise  boards  than  now,  is  not  taken  into  account.  But 
that  would  be  dealing  with  unknown  quantities.  Nor 
would  it  make  any  appreciable  difference  if  allowance  were 
made  for  the  clubs  that  now  pay  a  tax  (the  bona  fide  ones 
are  few),  or  for  those  certificates  surrendered  which  really 
signify  places  that  have  gone  out  of  business. 


412      OPEEATION    OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

LOCAL    OPTION. 

Only  sixty-two  towns  voted  on  the  four  questions  sub- 
mitted in  the  spring  of  1896  ;  the  remaining  880  voted  in 
the  spring  of  1897  with  the  following  results  :  — 

Against  all  sales 263 

For  sales  under  all  four  propositions 359 

For  sales  by  pharmacists  and  hotels  only    .     ,     .  117 

For  sales  by  hotels  only 105 

For  sales  by  pharmacists  only 34 

Sixty-four  were  variously  divided  upon  the  different 
questions  ;   total  towns,  942. 

There  are  now  twenty  fewer  "absolutely  no-license" 
towns  than  when  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  took  effect.  As  an 
offset  to  this  loss,  it  is  pointed  out  that  there  are  "  very 
many  less  saloons  and  groceries  where  liquors  are  dis- 
pensed." But,  unfortunately,  "hotels"  have  become  far 
more  pernicious  than  the  ordinary  saloon,  both  in  small  and 
large  places.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probably  true  that 
local  prohibition  is  better  enforced  than  formerly.  The 
experiment  with  local  option  is  too  new  to  warrant  any 
general  conclusions.  But  the  criticism  that  the  law  is 
clumsily  drawn,  if  not  contrived  to  make  complete  pro- 
hibition difficult  of  attainment,  is  not  unreasonable.  In 
sixty-four  towns,  the  results  of  the  first  vote  were  evidently 
so  confusing  as  to  make  a  classification  impossible.  The 
invitation  to  discrimination  against  the  saloons  in  favor  of 
the  hotel  (see  law)  may  prove  a  kind  of  balm  to  the  con- 
science of  some  people,  but  the  resulting  semblance  of  local 
prohibition  is  worse  than  none. 

ENFORCEMENT,     CRIMINAL     PROSECUTIONS,     AND     CIVIL 

ACTIONS. 

It  is  but  faint  praise  to  indorse  the  official  statement, 
"  The  Liquor  Tax  Law  has  been  better  observed  and  better 


ENFORCEMENT    AND    PROSECUTIONS.  413 

enforced  than  any  former  excise  law  of  the  State,"  (Second 
Ann.  Rep.  of  the  State  Commissioner  of  Excise,  p.  10.) 
Former  laws  were  not  enforced  at  all,  except  for  brief  peri- 
ods in  a  few  localities.  Nor  could  the  fact  that  ampler 
legal  means  for  compelling  olDedience  to  the  law  are  now 
available,  both  to  officials  and  citizens,  afford  much  consola- 
tion were  it  not  that  signs  of  a  healthier  public  sentiment 
are  visible.  Through  honest  and  unremitting  efforts  the 
Excise  Department  has  made  itself  respected.  To  be  sure, 
it  cannot  do  much  more  than  collect  taxes  and  prod  officials. 
But  this  has  a  salutary  effect.  Dealers  have  now  a  realiz- 
ing sense,  formerly  lacking  in  more  than  one  locality,  that 
the  tax  must  be  paid  to  the  last  farthing ;  and  much  of  the 
illegal  traffic  has  been  stopped.  Local  officials  are  no  longer 
so  prone  to  repudiate  all  responsibility  for  enforcement. 
Excise  cases  obtain  wider  publicity  than  before,  and  citizens 
have  an  opportunity  of  learning  what  magistrates  and  attor- 
neys are  about.  In  short,  there  is  a  livelier  public  con- 
sciousness of  the  fact  that  liquor  -  selling  is  regulated  by 
law  ;  and  that  is  a  decided  gain.  Although  enforcement  is 
still,  on  the  whole,  feeble  and  in  some  places  farcical,  such 
bold-faced  violations  as  were  the  order  of  the  day  in  some 
localities  not  many  months  ago  are  not  likely  to  recur.  But 
it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  saloon-hotel  keepers  enjoy 
a  measure  of  freedom  from  interference  whereby  the  problem 
of  enforcing  the  Sunday  laws  has  been  much  simplified. 

The  ugliest  feature  of  the  present  situation  is  the  rarity 
of  convictions  for  violations.  So  long  as  public  prosecutors 
and  juries  treat  excise  offenses  with  marked  leniency,  the 
police  cannot  be  counted  on  to  keep  up  the  rather  purpose- 
less work  of  arresting  offenders. 

Data  published  by  the  Excise  Department  furnish  the 
measure  of  the  present  enforcement  of  the  law,  and  show 
also  the  extent  to  which  the  punitive  sections  become 
operative.      All   indictments  and  convictions  for  violations, 


414      OPERATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

as  well  as  the  preliminary  examination  by  magistrates  of 
persons  charged  with  such  violations,  are  reported  to  this 
department.  The  statement  below  is  practically  complete 
for  the  whole  State  as  to  indictments  and  convictions,  but 
not  as  to  persons  held  for  grand  juries.  The  law  compel- 
ling magistrates  to  make  reports  is  of  more  recent  date,  and 
is  said  not  to  have  been  fully  complied  with :  — 

Indictments   found  September  30,  1896,  to  October  1, 

1897 1,006 

Indictments  found  prior  to  October  1,  1896 662 

Verified  complaints  submitted  to  district  attorneys  for 

prosecution 377 

Indictments  dismissed   March   23,  1896,  to  October  1, 

1897 351 

Convictions 119 

Fines  imposed   ...    * $16,089.32 

Fines  collected  and  paid 6,834.32 

Indictments  pending  October  1,  1897 1,198 

Persons  held  to  await  the  action  of  grand  juries    .     .     .        741 

Taking  only  the  total  number  of  indictments  (1,668) 
found,  and  supposing  prosecution  to  have  been  brought  on 
each,  we  find  that  convictions  resulted  in  but  7.13  per  cent. 
of  the  cases.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  known  how 
many  trials  took  place  on  indictments  and  the  verified  com- 
plaints submitted.  Curiously  enough,  the  law  requires  re- 
ports to  be  made  of  indictments  and  convictions,  but  not 
of  the  cases  hung  up  in  the  offices  of  district  attorneys. 
Probably  in  hundreds  of  instances  no  effort  is  made  to 
bring  about  a  trial.  The  fines  imposed  averaged  but 
$135.20  for  each  of  the  119  convictions.  In  thirty-four 
out  of  the  fifty-seven  counties  not  a  cent  has  been  collected 
in  fines.  The  largest  amount  came  from  New  York  city, 
namely,  $1,382.  It  appears  that  not  a  single  fine  has  been 
collected  for  illegal  traffic ;  for  that  is  always  to  be  twice 
the  amount  of  the  tax.  So  far,  the  value  of  the  authority 
delegated  to  the  excise  commissioner  of  beginning  a  civil 


AERESTS   FOR   DRUNKENNESS.  415 

action  to  recover  a  penalty  of  $50  for  each  violation  of  the 
law,  to  he  exercised  in  cases  where  local  authorities  cannot 
or  will  not  do  their  duty,  has  not  been  demonstrated. 

Only  the  more  important  civil  actions  and  proceedings 
during  the  year  ending  September  30,  1897,  need  be  noted. 
Eleven  proceedings  were  instituted  by  tlie  Department  of 
Excise  to  restrain  illegal  traffic,  resulting  in  injunctions 
being  issued  in  eight  cases.  By  the  department  twenty- 
two,  and  by  citizens  fifty-three,  actions  were  instituted  to 
revoke  and  cancel  liquor  tax  certificates ;  thirty-six  were 
revoked,  and  twenty-six  cases  dismissed  or  discontinued  ; 
thirteen  cases  are  still  pending.  Five  actions  were  brought 
to  enforce  the  penalty  on  bonds. 

The  nuuaber  of  certificates  revoked  is  not  so  surprisingly 
small  when  we  remember  how  few  convictions  are  obtained. 
Conviction  must  precede  revocation. 

ARRESTS     FOB     DRUNKENNESS. 

Since  it  has  been  officially  asserted  (Second  Annual  Re- 
port of  the  State  Commissioner  of  Excise,  p.  5)  that  arrests 
for  drunkenness  have  decreased  under  the  present  law,  the 
facts  upon  Avhich  this  statement  is  made  must  be  briefly 
examined.  Under  an  act  of  May  23,  1895,  justices  of 
peace  are  required  to  keep  "a  Justices'  Criminal  Docket," 
giving  a  complete  record,  among  other  things,  of  arrests  for 
drunkenness.  Some  time  elapsed  before  the  act  became 
generally  operative.  From  these  dockets  agents  of  the 
Department  of  Excise  have  tabulated  the  number  of  arrests 
on  the  charges  "  drunk,"  "  drunk  and  disorderly,"  and 
"  public  intoxication  "  under  the  one  head  of  "  intoxica- 
tion." The  department  observes :  "  In  some  instances,  the 
docket  records  show  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  officials  to 
conceal  real  causes  of  arrest.  Some  justices  never  commit. 
...  In  some  localities  drunkenness  is  hardly  considered 
a  crime  of  which  official  cognizance  should  be  taken  j  in 


416      OPEKATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX   LAW. 

others,  apparently  little  heed  has  been  given  to  the  observ- 
ance of  a  statute  requiring  a  criminal  docket  to  be  kept." 
Mention  is  made  of  "  these  obstacles,  .  .  .  together  with 
the  destruction  of  records  by  fire,  or  their  removal  by  out- 
going officials." 

Furthermore,  comparative  data  for  any  whole  year  under 
the  former  liquor  law  are  unobtainable,  since  the  act  re- 
quiring records  to  be  kept  did  not  become  operative  until  the 
latter  half  of  1895.  The  available  statistics  under  the  pre- 
sent law  do  not  extend  beyond  September  30,  1897.  One 
may,  therefore,  justly  say  of  the  statistics  of  arrest  fur- 
nished by  the  Department  of  Excise  not  only  that  "  at  best 
this  information  is  somewhat  incomplete  and  unsatisfactory," 
but  that  it  is  absolutely  worthless  as  a  basis  for  any  safe 
conclusions.  For  the  whole  State  a  decrease  of  3,798  ar- 
rests in  1896  as  compared  with  the  preceeding  year  is  shown 
by  the  dockets.  But  this  total  hardly  represents  more  than 
the  fluctuations  observed  in  a  single  city  from  one  year  to 
another.  Thus  in  Buffalo  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  and 
disorderly  conduct  show  an  increase  in  1897  of  3,474  over 
1896 ;  yet  it  would  be  unwarrantable  to  argue  from  this 
isolated  fact  that  under  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  there  is  less 
sobriety  than  before. 

It  is  quite  possible,  but  not  probable,  that  drunkenness 
has  perceptibly  diminished  within  two  years ;  no  one  can 
tell.  We  know  nothing  about  the  consumption  of  liquor, 
and  of  production  only  that  the  output  of  the  breweries  in 
the  State  has  decreased ;  but  this  is  also  true  of  States  in 
which  there  has  been  no  change  in  legislation,  for  instance 
in  Illinois  and  Ohio. 

FINANCIAL     RESULTS. 

The  unqualified  success  of  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  as  a 
revenue-producer,  and  the  economy  of  state  control  of  the 
traffic,  may  be  gleaned  from  the  following  comparative 
statement :  — 


FINANCIAL   RESULTS.  417 

Total  receipts   under  the   old   law  for  twelve 

months  ending  April  30,  1896 $3,172,376.58 

Expenses  of  collection 252,782.77 

Net  revenue $2,919,593.81 

Ratio  of  expenses  of  collection,  8.65  per  cent. 

Total  receipts  under  the  Liquor  Tax  Law  from 

October  1,  1896,  to  September  30,  1897      .     .    $12,267,012.59 
Rebates  paid  during  above  period     $517,971.09 
County  treasurer's  fees    ....  61,488.31 

Expenses  of  Excise  Department  .       263,647.43 

840,106.83 

Net  revenue $11,423,205.76 

Amount  paid  into  state  treasury  (one  third)     .      $3,914,906.76 

to  cities 6,938,180.13 

"        to  towns 834,466.30 


Bitter  resentment  against  the  State's  sharing  the  excise 
revenue  is  shown  by  many  who  regard  it  as  a  scheme  to 
"  bleed"  the  cities  for  the  benefit  of  the  rural  districts  where 
a  low  tax  is  paid,  or,  in  some  places,  none.  Such  was 
doubtless  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law.  But 
under  the  operation  of  the  Equalization  Table  of  1897,  pre- 
pared by  the  State  Board  of  Assessors,  each  locality  is  a 
beneficiary  in  the  tax  moneys  turned  into  the  state  treasury 
in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  excise  tax  it  pays.  In  other 
words,  a  locality  is  relieved  from  direct  taxation  to  the 
amount  raised  indirectly  by  taxes  on  the  liquor  traffic. 
The  excise  money  paid  to  the  State  in  excess  of  its  percent- 
age of  the  state  tax  accrues  to  the  locality.  This  arrange- 
ment would  seem  to  benefit  the  real-estate  owner  and  rent- 
payer. 

To  illustrate  how  the  system  works :  — 


418      OPEKATION   OF   NEW   YORK   LIQUOR   TAX    LAW. 

In  New  York  city  for  the  year  ending  Septem- 
ber 30,  1897,  the  net  revenue  was       ....    $5,392,275.20 


City's  share  (two  thirds) 3,594,850.13 

State's  share  (one  third) 1,797,425.07 

The  city  received  in  rebated  state  taxation  on 

account  of  the  state  excise  revenue  ....  $1,842,428.30' 

As  stated  above,  it  paid  to  the  state  treasury    .  1,797,425.07 


Direct  gain  to  the  city  over  and  above  what  it 
pays  to  the  State 145,003.23 

The  total  receipts  in  license  fees  in  New  York  city  in  1895 
was  $1,790,530,  or  $1,804,320.13  less  than  during  the  last 
fiscal  year  under  the  present  system,  and  the  expense  of 
collection  was  much  larger  in  1895.  Of  the  gross  excise 
receipts  in  the  State,  $8,920,855.91,  or  over  two  thirds,  are 
contributed  by  the  three  counties.  New  York,  Kings,  and 
Erie.  A  uniform  tax  on  the  traffic  regardless  of  popula- 
tion would,  of  course,  have  yielded  very  different  results. 

With  all  its  palpable  defects,  the  tax  feature  of  the  law 
has  demonstrated  beyond  peradventure  that  the  weight  of 
tax  which  can  be  borne  by  the  liquor  trade  has  not  yet 
reached  its  limit,  and  that  a  reduction  of  drink  places  fol- 
lows very  nearly  in  proportion  as  the  tax  rate  is  raised. 
These  are  lessons  of  positive  benefit,  and  new  in  the  State 
of  New  York. 

Apart  from  considerations  of  the  law,  the  question 
whether  the  system  of  state  control  provided  has  proved  its 
superiority  over  the  preceding  system  of  local  control  must, 
on  the  whole,  be  answered  in  the  affirmative.  Remember- 
ing that  the  excise  boards  generally  were  not  what  they 
might  have  been,  disinterested  persons  cannot  mourn  their 
abolition.  Against  the  present  lack  of  discretionary  author- 
ity to  prevent  objectionable  persons  from  engaging  in  an 
admittedly  dangerous  business  must  be  held  the  fact  that, 
while  this  authority  existed,  it  was  not  commonly  used  in 


CONCLUSIONS.  419 

the  interests  of  public  morality.  And,  aside  from  the  dif- 
ficulty in  keeping  the  boards  free  from  venal  politics  and 
other  contaminating  influences,  their  administration  was 
usually  inefficient  and  always  expensive.  In  the  latter  re- 
spects the  Department  of  Excise  presents  a  pleasing  con- 
trast. Instead  of  scores  of  methods  or  no  method  at  all, 
there  is  uniformity  and  systematized  control.  For  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  State,  it  is  made  possible  to  obtain 
some  reliable  information  about  the  various  phases  of  the 
liquor  traffic  in  all  localities.  This  again  is  a  positive  bene- 
fit, and  has  doubtless  resulted  in  quickening  public  interest 
in  the  liquor  problem  as  a  whole. 


INDEX. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  liquor   trafiflc   in, 

400-402. 

Alleglieny  County,  Pa.,  liquor  traffic 
in,  268-283 ;  local  laws,  270,  271  ; 
illegal  sales,  272;  number  of  li- 
censes, 273 ;  juries  in, 274, 275 ;  elec- 
tion of  judge,  276 ;  license  court, 
277  ;  Brooks  law,  279. 

Androscoggin  County,  Me.,  67-70. 

Anti-Saloon  League  in  Ohio,  305. 

Appleton,  Gen.  James,  proposes 
prohibition  by  law  in  Maine,  24. 

Aroostook  County,  Me.,  70,  71. 

Arrests  for  drunkenness,  16,  60,  69, 
80,  83,  176-180,  200,  202,  213-218,  225, 
258-262,  283,  301,  302,  334,  335,  397, 
415. 

Augusta,  Me.,  liquor  traffic  in,  73. 

Bangor,  Me.,  liquor  traffic  in,  78-80. 

Bar  Harbor,  Me.,  violation  of  law  in, 
71,  72. 

Bars,  public,  in  Massachusetts,  200. 

Bath,  Me.,  liquor-selling  in,  82. 

Bee  be,  Roderick,  case  of,  308,  309. 

Belfast,  Me.,"  sarsaparilla ''  industry 
in,  84. 

Berks  County,  Pa.,  German  stamp 
of,  288 ;  licenses  in,  289. 

Biddeford,  Me.,  liquor  traffic  in,  85, 
93. 

"  Blind  tigers,"  150, 167, 180  6. 

Board  of  control,  180  a. 

Boies,  Gov.  Horace,  123, 124, 126, 127. 

Bonds  of  licensees,  10,  184,  186,  192, 
202,  360,  380. 

"  Boot-leggers,"  115. 

Boston,  Mass.,  police  commissioners 
of,  183,  184,  191-196;  license  com- 
missioners, 188-190 ;  liquor-selling 
at  the  end  of  tlie  prohibitory  pe- 
riod, 188  note;  violations  of  li- 
censes, 189, 190, 194, 195,  203 ;  sure- 
ties on  liquor  bonds,  192  ;  metropol- 
itan board  of  police  commissioners, 
197 ;  limitation  law,  199 ;  illicit 
traffic.  200 ;  license  fees,  203 ;  work- 
ing of  the  law,  203-205 ;  arrests  and 
prosecutions  of  dealers,  206-212 ; 
arrests  for  drunkenness,  213-218 ; 
penalties  imposed,  219, 220. 

Breweries,  in  Iowa,  116;  in  South 
Carolina,  167;  in  St.  Louis,  331- 
336. 


Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  liquor    traffic   in 

398,  399. 
Brooks  law,  the,  in  Pennsylvania, 

239  se({. 
Brunswick,  Me.,   liquor   traffic   in, 

67. 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  a  saloon  centre,  404- 

406. 
Burlington,  Iowa,  mob  in,  106 ;  non- 
enforcement  of  law  in,  138. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  liquor  traffic  in, 
171 ;  arrests  for  illegal  selling,  174; 
arrests  for  drunkenness,  176. 

Church  officials  as  indorsers  of  ap- 
plications for  licenses,  245, 246. 

Cincinnati,  O.,  arrests  in,  302 ;  num- 
ber of  saloons  in,  302 ;  Sunday 
liquor-selling,  304 ;  Municipal  Ke- 
form  League,  305. 

Cincinnati  Commercial  Gazette, 
cited,  316  note. 

Clubs,  liquor,  253,  254,  289. 

Cohoes,  N.  Y.,  liquor  tax  and  saloons 
in,  401. 

Columbia,  S.  C,  trials  of  dispensary 
cases  in,  175;  arrests  for  drunken- 
ness, 177, 178. 

Columbus,  O.,  arrests  in,  301. 

Commissioner,  state  liquor,  26, 30, 91, 
92,  351,  356. 

Constitutional  amendment  in  Maine, 
29-34. 

"  Cork-Screw,  the  reign  of  the,"  121. 

Courts,  as  licensing  authorities,  9, 
231,  240-242,  262-264,  277-279,  323  ; 
dealing  with  liquor  cases,  13-15,54, 
55,  88-91,  209-212,  223;  and  the 
South  Carolina  dispensary  law, 
156-160, 175, 180  a. 

Cumberland  County,  Me.,  66,  67. 

Cunnnins,  A.  B.,  118, 119, 127. 

Darby,  Pa.,  notable  license  case  In, 

263,  264. 
Darlington,  S.  C,  riot  in,  155. 
Dauphin  County,  Pa.,  licenses  in, 

267. 
Davenport  case,  the,  105. 
Davenport,  Iowa,  saloons  in,  124 ; 

non-enforcement  of  law  in,  138. 
Delaware  County,  Pa.,  262-264 ;  work 

of  license  court  in,  264. 
Des  Moines,  Iowa,  disturbances  in, 


422 


INDEX. 


107 ;  International  Distillery  at, 
116 ;  selling  "  drugs,"  132 ;  saloons, 
135;  restriction  of  liquor  trafiic, 
138, 139. 

Dispensary  law  in  South  Carolina, 
1,  7, 17, 20, 146 ;  financial  feature  of, 
149,  152,  162-164;  development  of. 
152,  153;  leads  to  riots,  154,  155; 
declared  unconstitutional,  156 ;  de- 
cision reversed,  159;  extent  of  the 
system,  161 ;  distribution  of  dis- 
pensaries, 161,  162;  revenue  from, 
163,  164, 169, 170 ;  as  a  political  ma- 
chine, 164-170 ;  inherent  defects  of, 
166-108 ;  violation  of,  169 ;  negroes 
the  chief  patrons  of  dispensaries, 
169 ;  enforcement  of  the  law,  170, 
173 ;  convictions,  173, 174 ;  drunken- 
ness diminished,  176-180;  law  re- 
enacted,  180  a ;  changes  in,  180  a ; 
present  condition  of,  180  b. 

Distilleries  in  South  Carolina,  173. 

Distillery,  The  International,  104, 
116, 117. 

Dow,  Gen.  Neal,  25,  34. 

Drinkmg  habits  at  the  beginning  of 
this  century,  22. 

Druggists,  liquor  sales  by,  13, 36,  43, 

68,  111-114,135,  254,  317,318. 
Drunkenness,  arrests  for.  16,  60,  61, 

69,  80,  83,  176-180,  200,  202,  213-218, 
225,  258-262,  283,  301,  302,  334,  335 ; 
penalties  for,  in  Maine,  32, 33 ;  fre- 
quency of,  in  Portland,  Me.,  59,  60, 
62 ;  in  South  Carolina,  172, 176-180 ; 
penalties  in  Massachusetts,  219; 
frequency  of,  in  Philadelphia,  237 ; 
in  Pittsburgh,  283. 

Dummy  warrants,  51. 

East  Machlas,  Me.,  early  temper- 
ance movement  in.  22. 

Eastport,  Me.,  prohibitory  law  in, 
84. 

Excise,  boards  of,  in  New  York,  340- 
348,354 ;  officials,  356 ;  department, 
373-377,  419;  arrests  for  violation 
of  law,  396-398. 

Express  companies  and  the  liquor 
traffic,  45,  73.  See,  also.  Inter- 
state conmierce,  Transportation 
of  liquor. 

Fairfield,  Me.,  83. 

Fanshaw,  E.  L.,  quoted,  37,  38. 

Farmiugton,  Me.,  prohibition  in,  63- 
65. 

Fidelity  Surety  and  Deposit  Com- 
pany of  Maryland,  380  note,  405. 

Franklin  County,  Me.,  71. 

French  Canadians  in  Maine,  63,  67, 
68,  70,  72,  83. 

Gardiner,  Me.,  liquor-selling  in,  73, 
74. 


Gear,  John  H.,  Republican  candi- 
date for  governor  of  Iowa,  102. 

German  influence,  in  Iowa,  97, 99;  in 
Berks  County,  Pa.,  288;  In  Mis- 
souri, 319. 

German  quarter,  in  New  York  city, 
386-389. 

Good  Citizens'  League  in  Indiana, 
318. 

Greenville,  S.C,  arrests  for  drunken- 
ness in,  178. 

Hancock  County,  Me.,  71,  72. 

Harrisburg,  Pa.,  characteristics  of, 
265 ;  licenses  in,  266 ;  drunkenness 
in,  267. 

Haynes,  Tilley,  on  liquor  traffic  in 
Boston,  196, 197. 

Hotel,  definition  of,  in  New  York 
liquor  tax  law,  363. 

Hotels,  liquor  sales  at,  42,  369, 379, 
390-394. 

Hubble,  George  E.,  on  the  prohibi- 
tory law  in  Iowa,  124. 

Imprisonment,  as  a  penalty,  14, 
91 ;  in  Massachusetts,  182, 213 ;  in 
Pennsylvania,  257-259,  282. 

Indiana,  liquor  legislation  in,  2,  7, 
306-318 ;  new  constitution  adopted, 
306 ;  local  option,  307 ;  prohibitory 
law,  307 ;  case  of  Roderick  Beebe, 
308, 309 ;  Supreme  Court  opinions, 
308,  309 ;  license  law,  310 ;  Baxter 
law,310,31l ;  repealed,  312;  Nichol- 
son law,  313-316;  the  Moore  bill, 
317 ;  Good  Citizens'  League,  318. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  enforcement  of 
law  in,  317,  318. 

Informers  in  liquor  cases,  14,  133, 
159. 

Intemperate  persons,  system  of 
posting,  222,  223. 

Interstate  commerce,  119,  120,  151, 
180.  See,  also,  Transportation  of 
liquor. 

Intoxicating  liquors,  as  defined  in 
Mas.saehusetts,  182, 199. 

Iowa,  liquor  legislation  in,  2, 18 ;  pro- 
hibition, 96-140  ;  local  option,  96  ; 
German  influence,  97,  99 ;  prohibi- 
tory amendment,  104;  mobs  and 
riots,  106 ;  defiance  of  law,  108 ;  the 
Clark  act,  no ;  the  pharmacy  act, 
112 ;  illicit  sales.  115 ;  the  Interna- 
tional Distillery,  115-117;  "the 
reign  of  the  cork-screw,"  121 ;  the 
Wilson  bill,  122;  the  mulct  law, 
128-130 ;  results  of  prohibition  in, 
130. 

Iowa  State  Register,  the,  quoted, 
125, 127. 

Iowa  City,  Iowa,  mob  in,  106, 107. 

Italian  quarter,  in  New  York  city, 
386,  389,  391,  392. 


INDEX. 


423 


Jessup,  Dr.  Elias,  and  the  "Jessup  " 

campaign  in  Iowa,  101, 102. 
Jewish  (luarter,  iu  New  York  city, 

386,  388-390. 
Judges  as   Ucensers,   240-242,  262- 

264. 
Jug  law,  thp,  in  Pennsylvania,  232. 
Juries  in  liquor  cases,  109, 133, 1.34, 

15-',  174,  175,  189,  256,  274,  275,  282, 

304. 

Kasson,  John  A.,  quoted,  105. 

Kennebec  County,  Me.,  72-74. 

Keokuk,  Iowa,  sale  of ''  temperance 
drinks  "  in,  108. 

Kidd,  Joiiu  S.,  owner  of  the  Interna- 
tional Distillery,  104. 

Kitchen  bars,  iu  Maine,  42,  78,  79, 
83;  in  Boston,  207,218.  See,  also, 
"  Speak-easies." 

Knox  County,  Me.,  75,  76. 

Koren,  John,  his  studies  of  Uquor 
laws,  1. 

Law  and  Order  League,  in  Boston, 
191, 193, 195, 200, 210 ;  in  Pittsburgh, 
273-275. 

Law  and  Order  Society  in  Philadel- 
phia, 239,  243,  249. 

Lewiston.Me.,  Uquor  traffic  in,  67-70, 
93. 

Lexow  Investigating  Committee,  in 
New  York,  349. 

Licenses,  8-11;  classes  and  condi- 
tions of,  in  Massachusetts,  181, 
182 ;  violations  of,  189, 190, 194, 195, 
203;  conditions  and  fees,  in  Penn- 
sylvania, 232, 233 ;  indorsers  of  ap- 
plications for,  244-24tj ;  transfers 
of,  248,  264,  325 ;  in  Philadelphia, 
248 ;  use  of  fees,  in  Ohio,  299 ;  con- 
ditions of,  in  Missouri,  323-325; 
taxes  and  revenues,  324;  in  New 
York,  .340,  383,  407-411. 

Lichty,  Norman,  on  the  Iowa  phar- 
macy act,  113, 114. 

Lieber,  Albert,  on  the  Nicholson  law, 
316  note. 

Lincoln  County,  Me.,  76. 

Liquor  legislation  in  several  States, 
1,  2,  7-9 ;  theoretical  difficulties  of, 
17-19;  as  a  promoter  of  temper- 
ance, 19,  94,  115,  136:  in  politics, 
19-21, 94,  403 ;  in  Maine,  22-92 ;  in 
Iowa,  96-140;  iu  South  Carolina, 

141-180. 

Liiiuor  tax  law  in  New  York,  338- 
419;  enactment  of.  349-355;  sum- 
mary of,  356-368  ;  certificates,  357- 
360,  378,  .380,407-411. 

Liquor  traffic,  corruption  of, 6, 80 ;  in 
politics,  9,  49,  56,  69,  75,  94,  99,  162, 
192,  193,  198,  205,  221,  226,  243-247, 
273-276,  279,  285,  302,  303,  335,  336, 
350 ;  private  profit  in,  17  ;  in  Port- 


land, Me.,  34-62;  in  Bangor,  78-80 ; 
extent  of,  in  Maine,  86-94 ;  strength 
of,  in  Philadelphia,  238 ;  under  high 
license,  239, 240 ;  status  of,  in  Ohio, 
292,  294,  298.    /See,  also.  New  York. 

Local  option,  6-8 ;  in  Iowa,  96,  131 ; 
in  Massachusetts,  183,  226-228 ;  in 
Pennsylvania,  247;  in  Ohio,  293, 
299,  305;  in  Indiana,  307 ;  in  Mis- 
souri, 322,  323 ;  in  New  York,  338, 
339,  342.  348,  364. 

Luzerne  County,  Pa.,  mixed  popula, 
tion  of,  283,  284 ;  licenses  in,  284, 
285. 

Maine,  prohibitory  legislation  in,  1, 
22-92 ;  first  temperance  movement 
in, 22 ;  first  prohibitory  law,  24 ;  the 
Maine  Law,  25;  the  prohibitory 
amendment,  29 ;  liquor  tax  payers 
in,  47,  48,  64,  67,  70-74,  76,  78,  81,  83- 
86 ;  Statistics  of  sales,  93.  See, 
also,  Portland. 

Maine  Register,  The,  cited,  23. 

Massachusetts,  liquor  legislation  in, 
1,  7,  8 ;  restrictive  system,  181-230 ; 
classification  and  conditions  of  li- 
censes, 181, 182 ;  license  law  amend- 
ments, 183-187;  license  fees  in- 
creased, 186 ;  the  traffic  in  Boston, 
188-220 ;  in  North  Adams,  220-226 ; 
local  option,  226-228 ;  effects  of  no- 
license,  229,  230. 

Militia,  in  South  Carolina,  refuse  to 
obey  the  governor,  155. 

Missouri,  liquor  legislation  in,  2,  7, 8 ; 
local  option  law,  319-337;  provi- 
sions of  the  law,  322-325 ;  evasions, 
325-330;  dramshop  in  Forest  Park, 
326  ;  "  the  Lilliputian  lots,"  327  ; 
case  of  "  The  Czar,"  327. 

Mobs,  in  Iowa,  106  ;  in  South  Caro- 
lina, 154, 155. 

Moonshiners  in  South  Carolina,  172. 

Mortgages  on  saloons,  381, 382. 

Mulct  law,  in  Ohio,  2,9,18,  292-305; 
in  Iowa,  128-130,  136, 137. 

Municipal  Keform  League  in  Cincin- 
nati, 305. 

New  York,  liquor  tax  law  in,  338- 
419  ;  early  li(iuor  legislation  in, 338, 
.339;  law  of  1892  in,  340;  excise 
commissioners,  340 ;  licenses,  340, 
341  ;  liquor  traffic  under  license 
law,  ,342-348  ;  local  option,  348,412  ; 
enactment  of  li(|uor  tax  law,  349 ; 
work  of  the  Lexow  committee,  349 ; 
action  of  the  Republicans,  350 ;  the 
Raines  law,  351 ;  summary  of  the 
law,  356-367;  constitutionality  af- 
firmed by  courts,  367  ;  first  effects 
of  the  law,  ,368 ;  Raines  law  hotels, 
369,379,  390-394 ;  Raines  clubs,  370, 
394-396 ;  the  law  amended,  372 ;  de- 


424 


INDEX. 


partment  of  excise,  373-377 ;  oper- 
ation of  the  law  in  New  Yorlc  city, 
378-397 ;  in  Brool<lyn,  398,  399 ;  in 
Albany  and  neigliboring  cities, 
400 ;  in  Rochester  and  Syracuse, 
403 ;  in  Buffalo,  404 ;  effect  of  higher 
tax  rate,  383 ;  effect  of  the  law  on 
number  of  liquor  shops,  406-411 ; 
enforcement  of  the  law,  412-415; 
revenue,  417, 418. 
New  York  city,  licenses  in,  346  ;  "sur 
render  "  rule,  346 ;  Sunday  sales, 
347;  crusade  against  liquor  deal- 
ers, 349 :  operation  of  liquor  tax 
law  in,  378-397 ;  Statistics  of  Ger- 
man, Italian,  and  Jewish  quarters, 
386-392. 

No-license  policy  in  Massachusetts, 
227-230. 

North  Adams,  Mass.,  liquor  traffic 
in,  220-226 ;  population  of,  221 ;  li- 
censes in,  221 ;  illicit  traffic  and 
prosecutions,  223,  224;  arrests  for 
drunkenness,  225. 

Nuisance,  liquor,  27, 90, 91, 310. 

Ohio,  mulct  law  in,  2,  9,  18 ;  liquor 
tax,  292-305;  liquor  selling  not  a 
crime  in,  292 ;  local  option,  293 ; 
intent  of  the  constitution,  293, 294 ; 
opinions  of  supreme  court,  294-297 ; 
the  Pond  law,  294 ;  the  Scott  law, 
295 ;  the  Dow  law,  297 ;  present 
state  of  the  law,  298, 299 ;  revenue, 
how  used,  299;  amount  of  revenue, 
300 ;  number  of  saloons,  300 ;  Anti- 
Saloon  League,  305. 

Old  Orchard,  Me.,  violation  of  law 
in,  85. 

Original  packages,  119-123, 180  a. 

Oxford  County,  Me.,  77. 

Pennsylvania,  liquor  laws  of,  1,  231- 
291 ;  a  peculiar  feature  of,  231 ; 
law  of  1887,  232-234.  See,  also,  Al- 
legheny County,  Delaware  County, 
Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Head- 
ing, Wilkes  Barre. 

Penobscot  County,  Me.,  77-81. 

Perjury,  under  prohibition,  62,  63, 
1.33. 

Philadelphia,  "  most  American  "  of 
our  large  centres,  235 ;  Board  of 
Licensers  and  Excise  Commission, 
236;  public  intoxication,  237; 
strength  of  the  liquor  traffic,  238; 
the  Brooks  law,  2.39;  wholesale 
trade, 240;  judges  as  licensers,  240- 
242;  conditions  of  licenses,  242, 
243 ;  liquor  element  in  city  politics, 
243;  indorsers  of  applications  for 
licenses,  244-246;  transfers  of  li- 
censes, 248;  improved  character 
of  saloons,  249;  evasions  of  law, 
250 ;  illicit  traffic,  251-254  ;  police 


and  the  liquor  traffic,  246, 247, 252, 
253;  prosecutions  in  liquor  cases, 
255-258;  police  magistrates,  255, 
256. 

Piscataquis  County,  Me.,  81. 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  character  of  the 
population,  268 ;  citizens'  petition 
about  municipal  affairs,  269;  li- 
censes, 273;  Law  and  Order 
Leagues,  273-275;  a  "whiskey 
town,"  283. 

Pocket  peddlers,  in  Maine,  37, 42. 

Politics,  liquor  traffic  in,  9,  49,  56,  69, 
75,  94,  99,  162,  192,  193,  198,  205,  221, 
226,  243-247,  273-276,  279,  285,  302, 
303,  335,  336. 

Portland,  Me.,  enforcement  of  the 
law  in,  34-62;  saloons  in,  39; 
kitchen  bars,  42 ;  hotels,  43 ;  drug- 
stores, 44 ;  wholesale  liquor  deal- 
ers, 45;  drinking  clubs,  46 ;  Liquor 
Agency,  46,  93;  United  States 
liquor  taxes,  47, 48. 

Portland  Argiis,  The,  quoted,  89 
note. 

Portland  Express,  The,  quoted,  53 
note. 

Profit,  private,  in  liquor  traffic,  17. 

Prohibition,  success  of,  4;  failure  of, 
5;  concomitant  evils  of,  5;  in 
Maine,  24-92 ;  and  temperance,  36 ; 
results  of,  in  Portland,  Me.,  57,  58, 
62;  in  Farmington,  Me.,  63-65;  in 
Maine  generally,  86-92,  94 ;  cost  of 
prosecutions  under,  125 ;  a  fair  test 
of,  130;  results  in  Iowa,  130;  ob- 
stacles to  its  success,  132-134 ;  diffi- 
culty of  enforcement,  133;  bene- 
fits of,  135, 136 ;  local,  in  Ohio,  299 ; 
in  Indiana,  307. 

Protection  of  liquor-sellers,  43,  49, 
50,  53,  68,  73,  75,  82,  193. 

Railroads  in  politics,  123, 124. 

Raines  clubs,  370,  394-396. 

Raines  law,  the,  351 ;  enactment  of, 
355 ;  summary  of,  356-367. 

Raines  law  hotels,  369, 379, 390-394. 

Reading,  Pa.,  clubs  in,  289 ;  saloons, 
290 ;  only  public  statue,  290 ;  drunk- 
enness, 290. 

Rensselaer,  N.  Y.,  liquor  tax  rate 
and  licenses  in,  400. 

Restrictions  on  the  sale  of  liquor,  11, 
.362. 

Riots  In  Iowa,  106 ;  in  South  Caro- 
lina. 154,  155. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  liquor  question  in, 
403. 

Rockland,  Me.,  intemperance  in,  75. 

Sagadahoc  County,  Me.,  82. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  French  and  German 
influence  in,  319 ;  territorial,  polit- 
ical, and   religious  divisions,  320, 


INDEX. 


425 


322;  Sunday  liquor  selling,  329; 
disregard  of  law,  329;  breweries 
and  tlieir  influence,  331-336;  pub- 
lic sentiment,  332-33(5;  general 
good  order,  336;  number  of  li- 
censes, 336,  337. 

Saloons,  restrictions  on,  10-12 ;  in 
Maine,  39,  08,  78,  79;  in  Iowa,  108, 
112, 116, 124, 132,  135;  in  South  Car- 
olina, 149,  150,  180 ;  in  IJoston,  203, 
204,  206 ;  in  Philadelphia,  248-250 ; 
in  Harrisl)urg,  Pa.,  266;  often 
owned  by  brewers  and  wliole- 
salers,  280,  331,  381;  in  Willves 
Karre,  Pa.,  286,  287;  in  Heading, 
Pa.,  290 ;  number  of,  in  Ohio,  300  ; 
in  St.  Louis,  325-330,  334-336;  iu 
New  York,  344-346,  381. 

School  directors  as  indorsers  of  ap- 
plications for  licenses,  244. 

School  fund,  and  profits  of  liquor 
traffic,  180. 

Schoolhouse  law  in  Massachusetts, 
193. 

Scott  and  Donald,  case  of,  180  a. 

Screen  law,  in  Massachusetts,  184, 
195,  204. 

Sioux  City,  Iowa,  tavern  ordinance 
of,  108. 

Skowhegan,  Me.,  dramshops  in,  83. 

Social  evil,  the,  and  the  liquor  traffic 
in  New  York,  378,  393,  394,  399,  402, 
403,  406. 

Somerset  County,  Me.,  83. 

South  Carolina,  dispensary  law  in, 
1,  7,  17,  20,  141-180;  political  and 
social  conditions,  141-143 ;  early 
liquor  laws,  143;  growth  of  tem- 
perance sentiment,  144;  dispen- 
sary system  adopted,  146,  147 ; 
riots  in,  154,155;  militia  refuse  to 
obey  the  governor,  155 ;  dispensary 
law  declared  unconstitutional,  156 ; 
decision  reversed,  159;  metropoli- 
tan police  bill,  160 ;  enforcement  of 
the  dispensary  law,  170-180 ;  dis- 
tilleries in,  173;  arrests  for  drunk- 
enness, 176-178;  good  results  of 
dispensary  law,  179,  180 ;  present 
condition  of  the  system,  180  b. 

"  Speak-easies,"  251-253,  259. 


State  Board  of  Control,  180  a. 
State  constabulary  in  Maine,  27,  35. 
Sunday,  licpior  selling  on,  11,  12,  42, 

44,  138,  203,  249,  251,  252,  254,  255, 
262,  266,  286,  289,  304,  318,  329,  347, 
358,  368,  393,  394,  399,  406. 

Sureties  on  liquor  bonds,  184,  186, 
192,  202. 

Syracuse,  N.Y.,  operation  of  Kaines 
law  in,  403. 

Tax,  liquor,  practical  effect  of,  383; 
rate,  etc.,  several  New  York  cities 
and  counties,  407-411. 

Temperance  and  law,  6, 19,  94,  115, 
116,  1.36,  166,  172,  179,  180,  189,  198, 
225,  228,  230,  259,  260,  261,  267,  283, 
288,  300, 335, 337  ;  first  movement  in 
Maine,  22 ;  advance  in,  36. 

Terre  Haute,  Ind.,  disregard  of  law 
in,  317. 

Tillman,  Gov.  B.  F.,  extracts  from 
messages  and  speeches  of,  145, 146, 
152,  158,  174. 

Transportation  of  liquor,  15,  28,  40, 

45,  119,  170,  180. 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  liquor  tax  and  saloons 
in,  400-402. 

Vance  v.  Vandercook  Company,  case 
of,  190  a. 

Waldo  County,  Me.,  83, 84. 
Walton,  John  T.,  quoted,  24. 
Washington  County,  Me.,  84. 
Washingtonian  movement,  24. 
Waterville,  Me.,  liquor  selling  in,  74. 
Watervliet,  N.  Y.,  saloons  in,  401. 
Westbrook,  Me.,  66. 
Wilkes    Barre,    Pa.,   Intemperance 

common  in,  286  ;  citizens'  petition 

against  violations  of  liquor  law, 

287. 
Wine    and    Spirit    Gazette,    The, 

quoted,  127. 
Wines,  Frederic  H.,  1 ;  his  studies  of 

liquor  laws,  2. 
Women  as  unlicensed  liquor  sellers, 

208. 

York  County,  Me.,  85. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


pTfi' 


ft  »>/M*- 


SEP  1 3  m? 


1"! 


«f 


RECO 

DEC  1 


FonnL9 — 15?n-10,'48(B1039)444 


U Pi  1 V  P. KS ii  i  O l^'  t : A  LI f  '. •  tuxiM 

AT 

LOS  .<i>!Gii,LES 

LIBRARY 


Illl  II  illMI  |lli  |i  ,,.,., 


3lTW§ft''«« 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  430  673    4 


